RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation/Archive17

This is an archive page, last updated 28 December 2019. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, < List>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>

, (new)(back)

Moderate vs. Tech

To all mods - I’m confused about the role of mod vs that of techs. It says mods have the authority to lock pages as one of their primary tools however I notice that techs have this same ability and protect pages on their own authority. Is this not an overlap of rights? Isn’t it only mods who should be locking pages? Would it not be an abuse of tech powers to lock pages down as mods should be the only ones doing so? Ace^Moderator 13:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I think it's fine if a tech does it, but if a moderator overrules or disagrees with the action, then the mod should have final authority. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 14:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Maybe in future tech will have to be an elected position on this wiki also. Spud (talk) 14:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Both good points. So a mod can overrule a page protect (if that actually ever needs to be done remains to be seen). The difficulty with tech elections for me is that I am totally ignorant of what makes a good tech so I wouldn’t know who is most qualified. Ace^Moderator 15:09, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

This is a nonissue. Sysops also have the power to lock pages, we've been doing this for a long time. — Oxyaena ^Harass 16:17, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Pretty sure he's-a talkin' 'bout lockin' pages from even-a sysop edits. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 16:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how that's necessary. — Oxyaena ^Harass 17:16, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Sysops get into edit-wars too. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 17:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes that’s what I meant. The tools for moderator are to lock pages - even from sysops but techs do that too so either going forward techs don’t have that ability or, as suggested, mods can overrule. Might also be handy to actually get some clarity about what rights techs have and what their usages are. For example if a tech has sysop revoke and the ability to lock pages from sysops then aren’t they just de facto but unelected mods? Ace^Moderator 19:09, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't see the need to introduce more regulations and shit, the current situation we're in works fine. This is a nonissue, but just to clarify mods have ultimate override authority (still subject to the will of the mob ofc). — Oxyaena ^Harass 19:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

So I ran a test

Techs have the ability to mod lock a page, edit a mod locked page and promote and demote users so techs are de facto moderators. Do we have any documentation on the role of Techs because the above functions are granted to people by election whereas the techs are not so they shouldn't have those rights, unless of course have them then they just don't use them. Which would mean any techs who mod lock a page, edit a mod locked page or sysoprevoked anyone would be stepping outside their authority. Ace^Moderator 19:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Can you fuck off? This is shit-stirring of the highest order. — Oxyaena ^Harass 19:30, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

No. I'm a mod talking to other mods on the mod discussion page. So, no. Ace^Moderator 19:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

IMO techs should have just edit filter rights, alter MediaWiki, edit and add gadgets, and modify interwiki data. All that stuff. Moderators should have the rest, including renaming users (though honestly techs can probably have it too), adding/removing user rights (especially that one, this role has nothing to do with techs), and suppress revisions (which should be a moderator job primarily, not a tech job). The ones I suggest getting scrubbed are not "technical work", they're community maintenance. That way, roles don't overlap as heavily and it's clearer who should be doing what though mods can choose to be *also* techs if they want.

Remember, Ace, your own advice on dealing with drama. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Everyone should be involved in community maintenance, I think mods should only be there to intervene in drama. Keep it as is. — Oxyaena ^Harass 19:40, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario I would tentatively agree, though I seem to remember this sort of proposal not going over well with the Techs the last time someone tried to get it passed. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:42, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I'll do my damnedest to make sure this doesn't get passed. — Oxyaena ^Harass 19:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

LGM - I’m not trying to create drama. I just have Oxy hanging on every edit I make. My query was where do the mods and techs differ and do we have any documentation on it. I like your suggestion though. Ace^Moderator 19:45, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Nothing is needed, this is a big fucking nonissue. — Oxyaena ^Harass 19:46, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but there's a reason we elect mods and not everyone can rename users/suppress revisions/add sysoprevoke. It's decided that some users should have a bit more powers than others because those users are trusted to not abuse those tools while also using those tools to help keep everything in order. As it stands, techs have extremely similar rights to mods and getting tech status is much easier than being elected mod (you get techs by request), so I think it's reasonable that mods should have significantly more power and flexibility than techs. I need a good reason techs need the ability to suppress revisions, rename users, and adding sysoprevoke; if they're supposed to keep the mods in check somehow (though I argue that other mods are supposed to check mods), then it calls into question on confidence of elections and having mods in the first place?

Ace: You're not the one trying to create drama, yeah, but you just said earlier you'd ignore, so just reminding ya.

Oxyaena: why do you think those rights are necessary for techs? It seems like you just like to have very similar rights as I do. I have my reasons for limiting tech rights, yours seems to be "it's the status quo". --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

The tech role gives the user the technical ability to do anything on the wiki, it is essentially full access to the mediawiki interface. Removing stuff from it defeats the point of the role and means that numerous applications of the techs would be impossible, which is why previous attempts to do so have been rejected. Limits to the techs powers are based on policy restrictions on what they should do not on technical restrictions on what they technically can do. EK (talk) 19:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

What Em said. — Oxyaena ^Harass 19:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I see. However, what would happen if techs didn't have some of those rights I proposed? Like, any specific case where, say, not being allowed to manage user rights would impair their work? Or would it just be, like, a weird restriction on what they can do? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:54, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I don’t care if techs have those rights, using them though could be considered abuse of rights because only mods were elected to use those rights by the mob. Ace^Moderator 19:56, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the status quo so long as it's understood that mods have the final say. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 19:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

It's a weird restriction, hell I was the one who demoted Ace and GC to mod. I think sysops should also be allowed to demote people, but sysoprevoke is a different matter, still I ultimately disagree with any restrictions, there's no good reason to. — Oxyaena ^Harass 19:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ As I've said before mods should only be there to intervene with drama, nothing more, nothing less. — Oxyaena ^Harass 20:00, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Two minor points on tech powers. 1) I was given tech without requesting it. 2) Sysoprevoke is specifically described as a moderator power (RationalWiki:Sysoprevoke). Even though techs have the ability to change it, they should not exercise that ability. Bongolian (talk) 20:00, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Which I`m fine with, just don't go monkeying with user rights just because you want to. — Oxyaena ^Harass 20:01, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

We just had Oxy, a non-mod, lock a page to mods only. That should only be a mods job for example but it isn’t the end of the world. However techs shouldn’t edit mod locked pages either. And I find it weird that techs suddenly shout about these rights being curtailed - why? Ace^Moderator 20:04, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Shut up. — Oxyaena ^Harass 20:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore this is pissing on Dysk's legacy, I won't have it. — Oxyaena ^Harass 20:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

You're overreacting, Oxyaena. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:24, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario there are issues with putting technical restrictions on a role that exists purely to allow its user to deal with any technical problems that occur. It is a bad idea to restrict techs from being able to edit certain pages from a systems viewpoint, and some system type pages are mod level protected. Also things like renaming users can be requested by a site user and completed by a tech under existing guidelines here. The majority of what a tech can do should not have to be done regularly since the site does not need too much maintenance but it's equally easy to restrict usage by policy as it is to actually remove the role itself. EK (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

That clears everything up. Thank you! I appreciate taking your time to explain to me. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:24, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Simple guidelines

The following should be mod only pratices:

• Protecting pages to mod only level
• Editing Mod locked pages
• sysoprevoke
• Setting up votes and responding to specific mod requests for assistance (so we don't turn the mod talkpage into a secondary Coop)

That's really straight forward as the mods were elected to have these rights specifically. Thoughts? Ace^Moderator 20:16, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we should say techs should exercise strong caution before performing any of these and should generally let mods handle it or at least get a mod consensus first. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:21, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Seems really straightforward to me. P.S. I sent you an email. Ace^Moderator 20:24, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain that with the exception of system pages, templates, signature and user pages, techs are already prohibited from mod protecting pages. Techs are definitely not allowed to use sysopreoke by their own accord. EK (talk) 20:25, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

So as per EK's post up above then how about this:

• Protecting pages to mod only level
• sysoprevoke
• Setting up votes and responding to specific mod requests for assistance (so we don't turn the mod talkpage into a secondary Coop)

Ace^Moderator 20:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

(ec) Well you have to be certain. I think we should be a little more explicit what techs should and shouldn't do rather than a single line that they "have no community authority and cannot police other users, unlike moderators." --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I think those are reasonable guidelines, but with regard to tech capacities, there should some clarity for tech about what 'allowed' means or use some different language like 'should refrain from except for fulfilling technical services'. For example there is at least one case of a tech changing sysoprevoke status. It was reverted by me after a simple explanation of the rule to the tech in question. Being a mod is not some glorious power; it's a burden and we do it as a service to the community. Bongolian (talk) 20:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Hell, I help administrate the Foundation website, I still think these guidelines are a nonissue. — Oxyaena ^Harass 21:12, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

This has already been de facto practice for a while, techs don't do sysoprevoke, no one has a problem with this. This is a nonissue. — Oxyaena ^Harass 21:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I’d say these simple guidelines will work. Let the mods mod and the techs tech. Ace^Moderator 21:17, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

The guidelines proposed here are much too basic to use directly. I have taken the general advice and updated the tech information page to make it clearer what techs are supposed to be doing or not doing with the role. EK (talk) 22:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

These guidelines still seem like a blatant power grab, anyone should be able to start votes. — Oxyaena ^Harass 20:16, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

The only thing I agree with here is techs shouldn't sysoprevoke, other than that mod protection seems like a nonissue and having only mods hold votes seems like an unwarranted power grab from the mob. — Oxyaena ^Harass 20:18, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I misunderstood. I agree with Oxy, voting should not be a mod prerogative. Bongolian (talk) 21:36, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. I said, "Shall we have a vote on it?" plenty of times before I became a mod. Spud (talk) 12:38, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I really only think mods should be here to intervene in drama, Ace is attempting, unwittingly or not, to centralize power into the mods' hands, that seems like a power grab from the mob, and is contrary to the wiki's spirit of decentralization and mobocracy. I'd make a joke about this being another episode in the ancient forever war that is techs vs mods, but this is serious. — Oxyaena ^Harass 13:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Like it or not, the moderators are a regulating body meant to keep good order on the wiki. The idea that the mob should determine the rules under which moderators treat one another is untenable. If a moderator takes a position on how they moderate something, and there is some trouble that results, the other moderators should be willing to chime in and express their opinions on the matter before taking it to the CC. I imagine Ace is not taking a case to the CC when he is opposed by a majority of mods. To have done as little as possible does not imply you have done as much as is necessary.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

The way I see it is that there's precedent for techs being de facto mods, hell even some sysops function like that (or used to before being elected, GC being one of them), which is what I mean by community involvement and decentralization. — Oxyaena ^Harass 16:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Techs are not de facto mods. I think the role of tech needs better definition. Ace^Moderator 16:43, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Everyone else here seems to disagree with you, and as I've said there's precedent for techs and certain sysops being implicitly trusted by the community to do things otherwise only mods would do. — Oxyaena ^Harass 16:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Techs are not mod and they need to be defined better. Ace^Moderator 16:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

The fact that you're so hamfisted is why you're not a good mod. You just go "NUH-UH" when someone contradicts your opinion. — Oxyaena ^Harass 17:13, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the moderators should have the authority to allow any sysops the rights you have described. Consider that maybe Ace has been acting as a sysops rather than a moderator. Consider the two blocks you recently imposed. The first involved blanking the entire page, and was proper. The second involved removal of a snarky paragraph of what I would call "meh" quality ( snark tends to be humorous or obscure depending on the author's ability). In my opinion you should have told the BON to use the talk page, which has not been touched,by the way, since 2016. The latter is not a gold-brained article and could use some attention by someone who actually cares about the subject.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Fair, I accept your constructive criticism, unlike the absolutist bullshit Ace puts out. — Oxyaena ^Harass 17:13, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

More of your phoney blocking. Also, techs aren’t mods. Ace^Moderator 18:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ace McWicked, I wasn't aware it was a talk page edit. That time I made a mistake, thanks for the correction. — Oxyaena ^Harass 23:32, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I've stayed out of this but I have to agree with Ace: "Techs are not mod and they need to be defined better." Techs are purely for technical matters and should keep out of elected officials' business. Scream!! (talk) 18:49, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Here is the description of what a Tech can do and should not do: RationalWiki:Techs. If anyone disagrees with this, it should be used as a starting point for revision and approved by the mob. We do not need a de novo description of techs in my view. Here is the description of what a Mod a should and should not do: RationalWiki:Moderators. The sysoprevoke power is described elsewhere (RationalWiki:Sysoprevoke) and should probably be added to this page. I would like to call attention to one sentence on the moderator description page:

“”The moderators' job is not to remove people or censure them, but to keep the vitriol in our discourse to appropriate levels.

I think that Ace has been a source of vitriol: before, during, after the election. I have tried to point this out to him. This is not so much an issue for regular Sysops, but I think that can be problematic for Moderators. Bongolian (talk) 19:29, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@BongolianThe only vitriol has been to Oxy and only in response to Oxy. I am being stalked all over this wiki by Oxy who makes her own rules on a whim. Everywhere else I have just been Ace - not drama or problem to anyone. Oxy seems to believe she is a mod by default by nature of being a tech. All I want to know is how does the separation of tech powers and moderator work given the have the same rights. Just bringing this question up causes Oxy to jump on me - again and again. It's not fucking rocket science. Ace^Moderator 20:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

It only takes two to have a fight. Try to stick to the rules, stick to the facts, and not make this personal. Bongolian (talk) 20:27, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Look it man - look over my contribs vs. Oxy. Wherever I post, they follow. I stick to facts, the comm standards and ask relevant questions about certain procedures we have here. This isn't personal for me. Ace^Moderator 20:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ace McWicked Look. Just be nice to Oxyaena. Maybe ask her to correct her own blocking error (as you see it). That's all it should take. @Bongolian

And if she overreacts, other mods should get on there and tell her to knock it off. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:25, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

The tech's' job is also not to remove people or censure them, but to take care of technical matters. This is also a problem.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, which is why I wanted to set up some guideline. We can't have people wandering round saying the are de facto mods. Why the fuck do we have elections if anyone can just claim to be one? Ace^Moderator 22:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

One area where the Tech's job has migrated has been with the edit filter, where a certain chronic Nazi troll has a specific filter for him. This person had been permabanned, and the edit filter — as far as I'm aware — was implemented with the full knowledge and consent of Mods and other interested parties. Do you have any objection to that, Ace? Bongolian (talk) 23:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Told you. Times have changed, and functions have changed, and there's precedent here, as multiple people have stated, for techs to act as mods. — Oxyaena ^Harass 23:45, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Then we need some guidelines because mods are elected to be mods but then we just allow Techs to be mods also? Why bother having elections? They are two different roles. @Bongolian. Given this example - Oxy ran as mod and didn't get the votes to be one so why are we having her act as a mod when the mob clearly showed they didn't want her to be so. Do you see the problem here? How do we have someone which failed to secure the position then just saying "well, I'll be one anyway"? Do you see the problem? Ace^Moderator 00:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Wait, what? No one told me techs should act/double as mods, Oxyaena. It's clear that techs have no community policing authority, explicitly said so in the techs page, even though techs have similar tools to mods. I know techs as people that have certain tools enabled to facilitate technical functions not regulate community discussion. Oxyaena, you have tech rights and lost the election fair and square: knowing this, I'm afraid it can appear to others that you have a dog in this race which is motivating you to react so strongly in opposition to this discussion in the first place as well as show a willingness to try expanding your limited roles. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I am salty about losing the election, yes, but my concerns are legitimate. Techs share some of the same powers and responsibilities and rights as mods, we do things they can't and mods do things we can't. Some of those powers, responsibilities, and rights overlap, as the case of the edit filter and that "certain chronic Nazi troll," to attempt to restrict what Techs do in their own field of operations, especially by a non Tech, is folly. I personally agree with Duce, with Techs functioning as mod-lites, or mod jrs, but the actual mods have the final say, @LeftyGreenMario. Indeed, the reason all the chronic username trolling has stopped is due to our work on the edit filter, as is the case with the viagra spam. — Oxyaena ^Harass 00:26, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, I think making edit filters to reduce spam is on par with a role as a tech. I don't have a problem. But it's not community policing like mods do, it's more of quality control? I'm talking about techs being unable to handle disputes and offer opinion/advice on dealing conflict and contributing to pages, or techs can't really make the ultimate decision based on a vote (they can hold a vote like anyone else, however, especially when others agree a vote is appropriate). --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:33, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I have made said "ultimate decisions" before and you were fine with them, you even thanked me for "taking the initiative" in banning UT. My position is that everyone should be able to "offer opinion and advice like mods do," and attempting to restrict that is a power grab that goes against the mobocratic spirit of this wiki. — Oxyaena ^Harass 00:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that's true. I appreciated that because everyone seemed timid about banning someone who wasn't explicitly against the rules, though we kinda had a plurality in that coop if I recall correctly? I know I was acting timid and the coop case wasn't being moved forward, so you made the push. In that case, it was an action that stalled for a while despite all opinions being offered and weighed against each other. So I think that's fine if I think about benefits to the community. What I meant by "offer opinion and advice", I was thinking about instances where I made a short comment "hey, tone it down", or something like that, and generally. I do think my advice and opinion by themselves tend to be good and well-thought out, judging from the frequent positive reactions I get from other contributors (which aren't immediate as it can add up to a positive endorsement in mod elections), though I think the mod status helps reinforce a good opinion and that should help people cooperate. Of course, mod status isn't a patch for bad argument, you still need to be fair. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:47, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Firstly attempting to restrict that is a power grab that goes against the mobocratic spirit of this wiki.? Says the person who lost the mod election then just says "I'm a tech so therefor a de facto mod" is pretty funny if it wasn't so sad. The mobocratic system decided and you didn't win. Trying to define Mod right vs. Tech isn't a power grab. I can't "grab power". I have the power of mod and that's it regardless of what a tech or sysop or any other user is. Tech's and mods are different - mods elected and techs are not. The will of the mod decided who were the mods. And that isn't you. Hence I am trying to figure out the guidelines. And LGM is right - techs have no place community policing. That isn't why techs do. Oxy, you are framing this as a power grab on my part. A power grab would be me trying to get some tech powers, or you trying to be a mod even though you lost the election. Thats an attempted power grab. Ace^Moderator 00:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

We don't even need guidelines. @RWRW's finna throw his two cents into the ring in a bit and I expect his position to be similar to mine. — Oxyaena ^Harass 00:51, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

My position has not changed. Techs are subordinate to mods because mods are elected. Anything a tech does can therefore be vetoed and reversed by a mod. Therefore, there's no real need for any strict rules on the matter. I'm not opposed to reviewing guidelines but the fact that this has turned into such a clusterfuck is making me lean towards leaving things as they are. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 00:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

A lot of this was discussed here, in a discussion started by a then-tech. I tend to agree with the above comments that techs shouldn’t be policing and adding sysoprevoke, but they also shouldn’t be restricted from starting votes (I was under the impression that anyone can bring things to a vote). I can’t say I’m too fussed either way about techs using mod-protection. --RWRW (talk) 00:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I just wanted a simple fucking explanation of the diff between mods and techs. It shouldn't have turned into the weeping sore of pus and burned feelings from someone who lost a mod election so is just demanding they be one anyway. Jesus fucking christ, Ace^Moderator 01:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

BTW I think anyone should be able to set up a vote - Mods tend to bootstrap the procedures in place. Ace^Moderator 01:02, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Which is what we have done, and I feel that asking that question in the first place will always open up a can of worms no one wants to deal with. — Oxyaena ^Harass 01:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Does anyone disagree

...that techs are subordinate to mods and that mods can therefore veto and undo tech actions? Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 01:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@CheeseburgerFace clearly does. — Oxyaena ^Harass 01:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't recall making a statement on this. I don't disagree.—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 08:54, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

As for me I don't disagree with your position. — Oxyaena ^Harass 01:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

There we go. As long as techs and mods understand that hierarchy, then I see absolutely no reason to go about altering any guidelines. If a tech does something the mod doesn't like, then the mod should reverse it. If it warrants discussion, then discussion should happen. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 01:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

In the wise words of Master Yoda: "If broken it is not, fix it you need not." Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 01:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I think so but the techs obviously have their own abilities which is outside of what Mods can do. Jesus man, every time I try to get a simple policy confirmation or an idea about how block policy goes I have to go through the fucking end on end bullshit with Oxy who is pissy because she lost the mod election so just decided she was going to be one anyway. Fucking hell it is a waste of time. Ace^Moderator 01:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with both of y'all, techs and mods operate in their own spheres, but when it comes to community policing mods have veto powers over techs. — Oxyaena ^Harass 01:14, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

And this had to take several fucking days. Ace^Moderator 01:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

And here's advice to reach what we want without dragging it for days: You two need to learn de-escalation. Ace, you can question Oxyaena's intentions without inflammatory language such as "is pretty funny if it wasn't so sad." (i.e. what I've said earlier about my concerns with Oxyaena's strong defense of keeping status quo with tech powers; "I am frustrated that discussions I start get an immediate inflammatory response from Oxyaena"). Oxyaena, you can also civilly communicate feeling attacked without telling Ace to "fuck off" (e.g. Ace, I understand your intentions but I feel in the light of drama we've been in, I feel this discussion has enacted partially to question my tech status). This is where civility is important because dragging discussion out longer than necessary is exactly that consequence of flaming and you have mods that lose their patience trying to work toward a solution. This is Not Good for improving how our wiki works. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 01:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Bongolian (talk) 02:14, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I apologize for my part in this, then, I should've acted better. Just to clarify, all for the status quo? — Oxyaena ^Harass 01:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not questioning you - I wasn't questioning anyone in particular. I didn't mention anyone by name. I'm over this can we just get the resolution. Techs are techs and mods are mods. Techs do tech stuff, mods do mod stuff. Ace^Moderator 01:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I can't read your mind. It may not be an accurate turn of interpretation, I only tried to make an attempt of approaching potential conflict better. But anyway, it does seem we're reaching the end of it and I hope I can try doing other things in the wiki such as moaning about uneaten burritoes. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 01:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

What's all this about burritos? Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 01:33, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

That's good to hear, Ace, I`m sorry for reacting in such a hostile manner and being so abusive myself. I'll try to do better in the future. — Oxyaena ^Harass 01:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@DuceMoosolini It all started when I just off-handedly say Ace should chill and eat a breakfast burrito. And, well, I'm still teasing. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 02:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep the burrito. I have Xanax and whisky. Ace^Moderator 03:14, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate the apology. I do expect improvement between you two, moving on. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 02:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

you're not a high school principal. Ace^Moderator 03:14, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Whatever. — Oxyaena ^Harass 03:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Look Oxy, this is the problem here. My comment wasn't directed at you and was in partial jest to LGM. You had no reason to insert yourself here, least of all with something snarky. So if we could avoid this sort of back and forth in future things would be a lot easier. Ace^Moderator 03:40, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I hope that we've come to some sort of truce, if not agreement at this point. Just a heads up to people that I will be adding a transclusion of RationalWiki:Sysoprevoke onto the RationalWiki:Moderators page on the assumption that this is non-controversial based on recent mentions of this and no one raising objections. Bongolian (talk) 02:14, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Fair. One caveat tho, I assume techs can sysoprevoke themselves in case they're LANCBING and sysoprevoke others with tacit mod approval? @Bongolian — Oxyaena ^Harass 02:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that self-sysoprevoking would be a problem, but if the person decides to return at a later time, they would have to appeal to a moderator to be unrevoked. Bongolian (talk) 02:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@Bongolian Made some minor changes. — Oxyaena ^Harass 02:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Just ask a mod to sysoprevoke someone else. It will save everyone some grief. Bongolian (talk) 02:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not saying you two should shake hands, or hi-five, or hug, or wave to each other, or do an eskimo-kiss or have a loving life-lesson-learning end of espidoe "Full House" style dialogue with cheesy music and the audience going "awwwwwwwwwwwwwwe" when all is resolved...but it would be helarious if you did Oxy and Ace. ShabiDOO 04:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

if you change your own user rights it goes without saying u can have them restored later by anyone - this is not a mod specific action EK (talk) 10:46, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Account Ban

@Ace McWicked@Bongolian Hi,

I read RW for a long time and I recently created the account ParkerPeter and started working on my own draft. Then I saw I got blocked by Oxyaena, who also deleted my draft:

19:28, 6 December 2019 Oxyaena (talk | contribs) blocked ParkerPeter (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of π×infinity! (account creation disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (Ban evasion: morris)

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Log/block

19:27, 6 December 2019 Oxyaena (talk | contribs) deleted page Draft:Not real communism (Hopelessly tiny stub: content <ref></ref>was: "{{communism}} '''(That was/is) not real communism''' is a common response to people who point to the failure of communis...", and the only contributor was "ParkerPeter" ([[User t...)

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Log/delete

I don't know who this "morris" is and I find unfair to be banned this way (for what?). I hope there's been some misunderstanding. Can you please fix it?--Miriam (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

This was a crap edit even for a draft page, 'ParkerPeter'/'Miriam'. Would you care to explain your evidence for ban evasion, @Oxyaena? ^{— Unsigned, by: Bongolian / talk / contribs}

I'll first go over the problems with the draft, Maduro and Chavez were socdems, not communists, and North Korea isn't communist either. Communism is defined as a classless, stateless society where everyone has equal access to resources and there is equality of opportunity, unlike what you find under capitalism. None of the so-called socialist states of the past century have even approached that, and that shit draft page doesn't even cover that very basic level of nuance, it was a strawman. As for the ban evasion I'll admit I fucked up, but I was just on a binge about communism and Morris, who's known to use alliterative usernames (iirc one was even Peter Parker) likes fucking with me, so who knows. I done goofed, you got me. — Oxyaena ^Harass 23:22, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

OK, I unblocked @ParkerPeter. ^{— Unsigned, by: Bongolian / talk / contribs}

Fucking hell Oxy, don’t delete someone’s draft work because you don’t agree with it. Why is always something with you? Ace^Moderator 05:32, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

And if you can’t control your block on sight methodology I’m going create a case for you to lose your blocking ability. Calm down. Don’t block accounts until you can actually specify a user is a block evasion. Think things through - not every new account is Morris or another blocked user. This has been brought to your attention by myself and others. Just chill please. Ace^Moderator 05:33, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Dox posted on the Saloon Bar

I know this affects an ass-ton of revisions, but anyone else thinking it might be a good idea to 86 this personal information about D from the wiki? I'm sure Oxyaena wasn't acting with malice when he posted this, and I don't know if this deserves any kind of sanctions, but in my opinion, it's none of anybody's business what @D does in real life to earn a living and Oxyaena really should not have done that. PolarPop (talk) 23:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

No. I don't think saying what someone's job is really counts as doxxing. Spud (talk) 06:27, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Maybe not but still dumb think to do. Is Oxy trying to inflame the situation? I wish she’d just back off the whole Morris thing and just be a normal user without constantly inflaming situations. Ace^Moderator 06:53, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

1) It was not doxing because D did state that he's a lawyer (User talk:D/Archive1#So... why are you so blocked from Wikimedia projects?). 2) PolarPop is very likely Morris, who has threatened to get Oxyaena cooped & banned recently under a different troll name. For anyone confused about who is Morris, the drama queen/doxer/stalker[1]/chronic ban evader: User:What a Wonderful World = User:Conspirate = David Morris on Conservapedia.[2] Bongolian (talk) 08:55, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

For my part - I apologise for my part in any drama over the last few weeks but all this started with me identifying Oxy as someone using the vandal bin inappropriately. Since then she has pulling me into debate after debate. I should do what I do with trolls...ignore her. Ace^Moderator 04:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Follow your own advice and ignore each other, otherwise take a break from the wiki. I'm tired of reading about drama after drama.—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 09:08, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I’m a mod and this was posted on a page specifically for mods to look at. Ace^Moderator 09:16, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

This is a valid point.—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 09:21, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I`m not attempting to inflame any situation, Morris is like a flea that just won't go away no matter how many times you treat it. — Oxyaena ^Harass 13:24, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Just ignore Morris (or who you think is Morris) and let other people deal with it. You don’t need to make this your crusade. Ace^Moderator 16:10, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about what happened on your talkpage, I refused to "protect" it because I thought you'd be bothered by it. I`m getting better at ignoring Morris, but thanks for the advice anyways. I`ma lessen my activity here anyways, gonna take a break and shit. See ya. — Oxyaena ^Harass 16:14, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I’m on holiday so don’t have much time or effort I want to put into this as I’m on holiday(I’m waaaay out in the NZ sticks - probably the most isolated part of NZ I have ever been to outside of national parks. It’s weird out here) but YOU, Oxy, don’t need to be Morris’s gatekeeper. It’s like you following new user accounts like a hawk and spend most your days on Morris patrol. Just take a back seat to it. Does it really matter if he opens a new account but doesn’t do anything or makes a single troll post? No it doesn’t so just focus your energies on something else and you’ll feel better as will everyone else on the wiki. Ace^Moderator 18:26, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Are you fucking serious?!

Fucking range blocks because you wet childish idiots can’t handle ONE fucking troll? Ace^Moderator 03:08, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

This should have gone to community vote first at the very least before instigating it. Ace^Moderator 03:09, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

That troll the "wet childish idiots can't handle" is a recurring harasser, Ace. This is more serious than you're treating it. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 03:13, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

There’s a whole community here which decide on things like range blocks. It should absolutely have gone before the mob. So these blocks appear in the logs? Ace^Moderator 03:15, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

There wasn't much opposition when it was proposed, and I gave the go ahead because the harassment is a serious problem and there was some precedent using a short range block (which was done when there was another recurring user, and that range block actually did the job stopping the troll). It's not just a troll, it's someone actively harming one of our users. This would be the log, by the way, but I'm providing this hoping you don't try escalating by unblocking. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 03:19, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

This should go to a proper vote. How long until Oxy decides Morris is using another IP range (given Oxy just blocks people on site - often incorrectly) and wants to use it again? And by logs in mean the block log or RC? Totally an abuse of power without community involvement. This is ridiculous. Ace^Moderator 03:24, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Oxy didn't "decide" the range. There was a common pattern of ipv6 addresses that was being used to harass and one user requested a range block for it. And I didn't believe this required a vote, as we've done range blocks without needing a vote. That went smoothly, we did it before, and, again, we stopped one troll this way, so there's no reason to think doing it again with a small discussion was inappropriate. By the way, the log is in the link; the block log for the range block is right there if you click on "view full log" in that block box. I'm not part of your magical perfect old guard group, I decide on precedent from my experience and that's how I rolled with it. It's not "ridiculous", it's me trying to act reasonable and not having the privilege of being a user during your own glory days.--It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 03:26, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

It should go before the community if we are going to use Range Blocks at all. Oxy is fucking cancer on this site. Ace^Moderator 03:30, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

That's what happened. We got a community discussion as I've linked above. And quit flaming other users. That comment is completely inappropriate and out of line. I told you already to practice civility and I got a "quit being a high school principal" in return, which tells me you don't care about my advice. Oxyaena hasn't even been involved and you already made a completely offensive and unacceptable comment to her. Protip: It's not hard to refrain from comparing others to cancer. I'm going to go ahead and now deem you unfit to be moderator due to that comment, and I will now say it is a big regret of me to endorse you for a position. While you care for this site, how you've handled all sorts of conflict has been completely counterproductive and always unnecessarily combative despite others constantly telling you to knock off. I'm frankly tired of hearing complaints and insults from you while failing to contributing to anything else to the wiki, aside from some rule clarification to be fair, especially in the moderator election when you justify why you won't contribute to the wiki because you want to make things "fun" while everyone including me, who do care more for the mainspace articles, who has been involved in this drama had precious time taken away (I and I figure most people involved rather be contributing to talk page discussions and articles). Meanwhile, I'm not going to "ignore" a harasser. Those people need to be dealt with because they're actively hurting other users. It's beyond just "trolling", it's active harm and I will try to find ways to minimize that while you can "ignore" in the meantime and continue complaining about how I'm not exactly like the Old Guard. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 03:41, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Insulting Oxyaena when she has done nothing to you or even said anything to you in this conversation is not okay at all. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄^{Ask about our holiday specials!} 03:47, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm actually impressed at how many different situations you can get angry at Oxy for in a small span of time. Depsite your previous comment:

For my part - I apologise for my part in any drama over the last few weeks but all this started with me identifying Oxy as someone using the vandal bin inappropriately. Since then she has pulling me into debate after debate. I should do what I do with trolls...ignore her. Ace^Moderator 04:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

You're still stirring up shit. Do better, now stare at Mario for a minute:

—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 04:05, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘1) I would like to see an actual vote among Sysops with regard to range blocking. The not too distant past of 2015 resulted in the desysopping of Ryulong in part due to intemperate range blocks (RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive37#Ryulong needs another section). 2) Range blocks have also been controversial in the more distant past and were widely opposed in a vote (2010, Forum:Nuclear Option). 3) A vote in favor of a particular range block would give political cover to whomever implements it. 4) Ace's lack of moderation continues to concern me. Bongolian (talk) 05:38, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

For newcomers, here's the blocklogs for the IP range in question. I have no opposition to vote about whether or not IP blocks should be banned. Additionally, I have no opposition to vote on removing Ace as a moderator. For what it's worth, there were other problematic things about Ryulong. The IP range block was the final straw.—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 05:52, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Seconded, anyone gonna hold the vote? — Oxyaena ^Harass 12:47, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I certainly think that range-blocking should be the subject of substantial debate before it's implemented. Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 12:58, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

It's already been done, and there was a discussion on it. We explicitly said that range-blocking should only be used during extreme cases, and only Morris edits from that range anyways. — Oxyaena ^Harass 13:00, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

And Ace isn't too happy about it... Tinribmancer (talk) 13:05, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

How long did the discussion go on for and how many users were involved? Was there a site notice? Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 13:11, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

One day and no! Scream!! (talk) 13:14, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Evidently no site notice and no public vote. For this significant change things should be a little more formal. Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 13:31, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Nor was there any site notice for the "original" vote. — Oxyaena ^Harass 13:39, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

The rangeblock apparently hasn't worked. As funny as it is to block half of Florida, it might as well be removed. --RWRW (talk) 14:17, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Just because the guy has other Ips doesn't mean we ought to allow him to use his old proxy. If he continues being a problem, w can see what his other Ips are.Summa Atheologica (talk) 16:30, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

We need mod approval, don't just go banning IP ranges on a whim. Let's see what @LeftyGreenMario has to say about this. — Oxyaena ^Harass 16:32, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Mod approval was received for the ban that is currently being discussed.Summa Atheologica (talk) 16:52, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I think just one range is fine, I really don't want to do more. Of course I expect reregs from Dmorris but inconvenience is the goal here, not stopping him. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:52, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

So, you are f***ing serious?

This fellow Morris seems to have some of you in a panic. But, perhaps someone thoroughly apprised of the situation could explain why it matters if some troll named Morris persistently drops in to have a gab. Ace is, in my view, correct in laughing at trolls. Oxyaena is correct in blocking them. Ace wants greater care exercised. What is with this power trip of trying to prevent some troll from ever getting into this space again? Is it not doomed to fail? What about just blocking the troll when it is recognized and going about your business otherwise. A troll isn't a troll until it starts to act like one. Everyone should relax, my xanax is just kicking in. Life is too short to go on like this.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

The recent block was because the persistent troll was recognized. Oxy behaved properly. We're not trying to preemptively block every possible troll -that's unrealistic.Summa Atheologica (talk) 17:37, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ariel31459 Morris is the reason why Dysk left a few months ago. Morris is also a banned conservapedia troll. Plus, Morris was also, iirc, trolling & spamming on the discord aswell. Tinribmancer (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

What I don't get is why is there an overtone of urgency and even panic in many comments? And this special troll, Morris, why is it's presence so vexing? I see from the above that he a very accomplished troll, a troll with a reputation. To me he (it) is a nobody. I fart in his general direction.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:52, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that's right.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:57, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

From what I've gathered a few months ago, is that Morris seems to be stalking Dysk, Oxy & EK outside of this site aswell (There's some stuff that Oxy doesn't want to say that seems really personal. I presume there's more going on than what I've seen & read on the site...). Tinribmancer (talk) 18:29, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ The reason Dysk left a few months ago was due to repeat harassment by Aeschylus (real name is persona non grata here, I know what it is and it ain't too hard to figure out) and Mike, Morris jumped in late in the game, mostly harassing me but eventually Dysk as well. Dysk gave Morris cold feet for a while when, as revenge for his constant harassment of me, doxxed Morris on Reddit. Morris made it personal, and Dysk paid him back in full. Don't fuck with us, David. — Oxyaena ^Harass 20:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Can we call for a vote then? Where should it be held? Saloon? I would like the range block vote restricted to whether the current range block should be continued, and that it specify that it be non-permanent. The current expiration is fine with me (π months) if the vote in favor succeeds. Should the range block be terminated if Morris continues to troll here? Bongolian (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I remember that name. I think he's was kiwi. And a former mod (do correct me on this one, since I saw some drama stuff from a few years back when looking through some older talk pages 2 years ago.). Tinribmancer (talk) 20:41, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

@Bongolian I would be against the idea of terminating the range block just because he is able to use some other IP. That proxy he used was very effective, and letting him get effective access to it again just because he managed to find another method of getting here would be, in my view, seriously damaging and counterproductive.Summa Atheologica (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I am not sufficiently well versed in the ins and outs of IP addresses, so I will concede that point unless possibly if someone has more to say about it. Bongolian (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

An organization called RIR distributes IP addresses to organizations. IPv4 Addresses like 45.56.102.80 are something a lot of people are familiar with. IPv6 Addresses like 0:0:0:0:0:ffff:2d38:6650 are something we are more commonly seeing. The IPv6 format simply stores more numbers, and allows the RIR to distribute more IP addresses to more organizations. You can define an IP range by denoting a slash and a number. The number indicates how many bits you care about. 2607:E000:0:0:0:0:0:0/19 selects the following nibbles in bold. 2607:E000:0:0:0:0:0:0. The means IP addresses 2607:E000:0:0:0:0:0:0 through 2607:EFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF are blocked. This is a HUGE range, not going to lie. It appears that the Oxy attempted to block all IPs given to "Cloud Sync Inc", however, I noticed that 2607:E100:0:00:0:0:0:0 is owned by "Sidus Group LLC". One issue you will encounter with ranged blocks is that you get overzealous and it starts affecting innocent users. Here's the thing though, if it's true that a certain individual is abusing a proxy range, you can always report it. I encourage everyone to download Tor Browser (or Brave) and try to create a new account or edit a page, you'll get the following error message:

Your IP address is listed as an open proxy in the DNSBL used by RationalWiki. You cannot create an account.

That's right. RationalWiki already has a measure it place to prevent open proxies from editing, Tor isn't really a proxy but whatever. I'm sure you can contact DNSBL to have an IP range flagged.—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 04:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@Bongolian: The range Summa Atheologica wants blocked is actually "2607:FB90:9". It is supposedly a proxy range, but it's not! Doing a whois on 2607:FB90:9:0:0:0:0:0 reveals that this is in fact a T-mobile IP address range, not a proxy. We already had a conversation about whether or not to block all T-mobile IPs a year ago. The consensus was a strong "no". So here we are, discussing the same thing ... again, but for a Morris instead of Grawp. Only this time, we thought a mobile range was a proxy range. Just goes to show how IP ranged blocks are a terrible thing to do because apparently, almost everyone didn't realize what kind of IP range we were even talking about.—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 05:28, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

OK, unless @LeftyGreenMario or @Oxyaena can put up a good argument otherwise, it sounds like the range block should be removed. Bongolian (talk) 08:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@CheeseburgerFace @Bongolian Morris and Grawp are the same person, Morris has been plaguing this wiki for years, he's also the guy who created all those fucked up "mutilated cheerleader" accounts, since he has a fetish for cheerleaders (or, well, dead ones). His first cyberstalking victim, coincidentally (or not), was a cheerleader he knew in high school (and which he was arrested for), his latest girlfriend was also a cheerleader up until she graduated last year (this is all public information on this wiki btw, I`m not doxxing anyone, they have said these things themselves). Since the same person has caused so much shit over the years, why not update policy to finally get rid of such a serial nuisance? The point of the block isn't to stop all activity as LGM said, it's to make it more inconvenient for the bastard. — Oxyaena ^Harass 08:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I can vouch that you are not doxing anyone, Oxyaena. I remember the details of the Morris drama now. Can CheeseburgerFace or anyone else suggest a policy change that might stand a chance of being approved? Bongolian (talk) 08:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I now recall Morris and Grawp being the same person being discussed on the saloon bar. Anyway, can RationalWiki block by user agent? That's the only other identifiable information a browser would send over. It may have the device name. If it's an android, an agent block would be a slam dunk since there's so many different models.—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 08:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘@Bongolian I removed that IP block. It wasn't the AT&T range. It was something else. I'm not even sure what was even up with that one. I recall it being a test.—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 09:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@Oxyaena He's a necrophiliac? Fuck, this get worser and worser... Oh, and he's, more or less, declaring "war" on us: https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Space&diff=prev&oldid=2140685

Who's this "we"? Some CP losers? Tinribmancer (talk) 09:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

And he uses a dial-up connection, it seems? Tinribmancer (talk) 09:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

In a couple weeks, he has christmas break; in other words his trolling increases when he doesn't have school. The solution last time was to disable registration by blocking 127.0.0.1. If I recall correctly, it worked like a charm.—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 09:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, I object having a permanent block on T-Mobile. However, I do not object to a temporary block while this kiddo has winter break.—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 09:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Then we just need mod approval. — Oxyaena ^Harass 10:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Upon further research, there's way more IP ranges. Please see the below link from ARIN's website:

https://whois.arin.net/rest/org/TMOBI/nets

The below has the syntax you want IPADDRESS/BITS:

https://support.t-mobile.com/thread/135872

• 100.128.0.0/9
• 172.32.0.0/11
• 208.54.0.0/17
• 208.54.128.0/19
• 50.28.192.0/18
• 162.160.0.0/11
• 206.29.160.0/19
• 216.155.160.0/20
• 66.94.0.0/19
• 72.250.0.0/17
• 174.141.208.0/20
• 2607:FB90::/32
• 2607:FC20::/32
• 2607:7700::/32

This may as well be an exhaustive list of all T-mobile IP addresses. Grawp/morris's IP addresses supposedly starts with 2607:FB90:9:: (which would be 2607:FB90:9::/48). If your are confident with Summa Atheologica's assessment (at this point, I'm not very confident), then block 2607:FB90:9::/48. If Morris only uses this range, only a portion of T-Mobile users will be affected.—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 11:23, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I would like to point out that there have been absolutely no productive edits from the IP range I am proposing to block. Therefore, blocking it will almost certainly not harm any innocent users.Summa Atheologica (talk) 15:34, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘We could try a block through around January 6 if you can establish with some likelihood of what a reasonable range might be. It's remarkable that Morris wants to be forgotten but keep coming back to stir up shit. I did a good job of forgetting him until he started stirring the shit pot again. The next time he gets caught stalking/harassing, the authorities may not be so lenient with him after that prior arrest.[3] The best way to be ignored is to go away. Bongolian (talk) 19:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

That's him? Hahaha, he literally looks like an tough guy, alright. Tinribmancer (talk) 19:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to rangeblock. I'll just block the offending accounts as needed. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:28, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@Bongolian I believe the "reasonable range" is the one I proposed (2607:FB90:9/48). I think your block time proposal seems reasonable.Summa Atheologica (talk) 19:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@CheeseburgerFace and @Oxyaena, do you have any opinion on Summa Atheologica proposed block range? Bongolian (talk) 19:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I think there won't be that much of a problem imo. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I just saw that my userpage has been protected after Morris decided to post the following thing after I told him to "fuck off": https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tinribmancer&diff=prev&oldid=2141101

Is he mentally 12-14 or something? Because that's the kind of humour preteens, PewDiePie's Broarmy & 4channers love to make... Tinribmancer (talk) 00:02, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

If he were mature, he wouldn’t waste his time being a wiki troll. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄^{Ask about our holiday specials!} 01:37, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposal and vote

The proposal is to institute a temporary range block due to chronic disruptive behavior on the part of David Morris. The block would be for this range "2607:FB90:9/48" and terminate on approximately January 6, 2020, when the disruptor presumably will return to fundie school. If anyone wants to put up a site-wide notice for the vote, feel free to do so.

In favor

1. Yes — it is a minimal and temporary range block. Bongolian (talk) 02:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
2. Our banhammers must be kept greased with the lard of our vile foes.Summa Atheologica (talk) 02:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
3. This is an appropriate action. Cosmikdebris (talk) 04:03, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
4. Yes. — Oxyaena ^Harass 06:29, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
5. Do it! Tinribmancer (talk) 10:48, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
6. Seems fine to me. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄^{Ask about our holiday specials!} 14:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
7. i am in favor of temporary range blocks being a mod power. EK (talk) 14:35, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
8. I've been involved in at least a couple other servers where we had to institute temporary range blocks due to severe harassment. As long as it remains temporary, reasonable, and well-documented, I have few qualms. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 17:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
9. Per. Rangeblocks should always be wielded with caution and for a good reason. Both have been practiced here. And after this vote, I suggest we document range blocks, how-to's, and gauging community opinion so next time, some otherwise hibernating Old Guard doesn't surprise me with some vote ten years ago. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
10. Seems like a no brainer to me. ShabiDOO 01:00, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
11. In support. Would also like to point out that some of the Oppose end seem to regard the problem as giving too much power to Oxy (who has been zealous in blocking, maybe a little bit too much so) or because it "would let Morris win" (not sure what this means, he wins because he's gone?). I would argue that both is irrelevant, as this situation is not about Oxy but about Morris. The idea behind the range block as I understand is to stop an editor with a track record of extremely disruptive and harassing behavior from continuing to do so on the site. As long as it is clearly communicated on the range block that this range block is temporary and it's because of this one user, I have no opposition to the range block.The Crow (talk) 12:49, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

    @The Crow As to the first point, I don't think that will be a problem. As to the second point, Morris "winning", it is my impression that Morris is trying to bait us into rangeblocking. However, I will say that despite my disagreement that if this vote does go through it should be well regulated and under no circumstances should it become a regular occurrence, the first of which this appears to be thus far. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 13:26, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

    @GrammarCommie The judgement call I would make for this is "what is the goal here". For us it appears to be to get to stop Morris being a problem on this wiki. To me, whether Morris is trying to get us to block him or not is not really relevant in that context. He's made clear so far that he's willing to keep creating alternate accounts to be a problem, so a little bit more aggressive blocking strategy would be needed. Thanks for the explanation however, that puts the reasoning in better context for me. That said, I do agree with your assesment of limiting the use of range blocks. Whilst it seems there's no official written down policy around range blocks (and the old forum thing seems mostly have been knee-jerked towards "we're not Conservapedia" rather than a serious argument to not use it, unlike the situation with Checkuser where there's a clear privacy concern against using it). Whilst I'm not sure if this is the place to suggest policy for them, if I would be able to give some form of input to such a policy, I would recommend always putting them up to a public vote (with a notice so a lot of people see it) and to never do indefinite range blocks. That way you prevent a power grab by elected moderators on range blocks whilst also discouraging the use of range blocks for anything but the most persistent trolls. The Crow (talk) 16:31, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

    This is exactly the reason why I'm in favor. I've seen this behaviour on other sites before in the past (2006-2019). Ignoring people like Morris is just feeding them into becoming worser and worser. This isn't Mike, Lomax or Logicnsuch that we're dealing with. Also, he's has 2 weeks of christmas vacation and said he and his friends would be coming along. We have no idea how many people are going to be trolling this site around the holidays. Could be just him, could be 2 people, could even be 8 or so. Do we really wanna spend that time dealing with David's shenanigans? Tinribmancer (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

    I'd rather try some of the fancy drinks I bought for the holidays, to be honest. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:22, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Opposed

1. Do it and he's won.Scream!! (talk) 12:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
2. There is a 100% certainty Morris will continue, necessitating further range blocks according to this escalated response. This will also embolden Oxyaena, who is among the most aggressive blockers in this site’s history by objectively measurable standards. This is a very bad idea that will not solve your problem. Nutty Roux (talk) 13:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

   Is anyone else reminded of anything else occurring in the big wide world? Like a border wall f'rinstance? Scream!! (talk) 13:37, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

   No. — Oxyaena ^Harass 21:36, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

3. I doubt he's only limited to this block range. 2607:FB90::/32 sounds more reasonable as I see more trolling from this range. Update the range to this and I will change my position.—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 13:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

   The range I mentioned is the only sub-range of the range you mentioned that I see Morris editing from.Summa Atheologica (talk) 14:01, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

   This search says the contrary:

   https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&search=2607%3AFB90%3A&fulltext=Search&profile=all

   We can also see cheerleader trolling coming from 2607:FB90:BC4C:470C:0:9:D88A:3F01:

   https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=all&fulltext=Search&search=2607%3AFB90%3ABC4C%3A470C%3A0%3A9%3AD88A%3A3F01

   —(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 14:06, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

   Okay then, I wasn't aware of those.Summa Atheologica (talk) 15:09, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

4. Per @Nutty Roux and @Scream!!. We should pursue de-escalation and not give the twerp the satisfaction. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:15, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

   "Pursu[ing] de-escalation" only really works if both parties are acting in good faith and desire de-escalation, IMO, and it's pretty clear they aren't. So unless you have an idea you're willing to share... ℕoir LeSable (talk) 17:35, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

   @Noir LeSable That is the tricky bit. I'll try to elaborate. I meant calming down (on our end) and forcing the drama to die down so DMorris gets bored and leaves. (Again...) ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:40, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

   Morris has a documented history of not getting bored with stalking/trolling/harassment both here on RW and in the real world. He's been at it since 8th grade, was arrested for stalking and a related charge of credit card fraud in 2006,[4] and yet he's still constantly trying this same shit that could eventually get him rearrested. Bongolian (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

   The thing is, he's way beyond satisfaction. I don't get how Scream argues that he will "win". He's on a whole new level of trolling. He doesn't care about "winning", he'll do anything, with path of least resistance, to harass, so the job is to temporarily limit these path, weighing risks. I agree how we handle it should be changed, however. There are too many users that are overreacting to a short, limited, discussed at length range block because, what, Conservapedia used to abuse it? Extreme caution is already applied to this range block, so these appeals to slippery slope are unfounded. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:22, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

   Hahaha. Quick, everyone - come with LGM if you want to live... Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

   Mockery doesn't make someone wrong. — Oxyaena ^Harass 21:35, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

5. Out of respect for the the ideals on which RationalWiki was founded, I am opposed to a range block Spud (talk)
6. Shit idea cooked up by (mostly) sincere idiots who, when reminded of DFTT, respond instead with gavage. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

   Wondered if you'd show up :)Scream!! (talk) 17:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

   You really don't understand the issue at hand, do you? It's always good practice to call others "idiots" when they want to take action against a serial harasser and chronic pest for once. — Oxyaena ^Harass 17:31, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

   I rather think that 'HBC' understands rather more than you what RatWiki is all about.Scream!! (talk) 17:37, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

   Yes, because this wiki is foolish enough to be perfectly okay with complete harassment and shitty people. — Oxyaena ^Harass 17:41, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

   I think it's time I summoned @LeftyGreenMario, she has the patience to deal with fools like you. — Oxyaena ^Harass 17:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

   Harassment is a Serious Problem. Ignoring doesn't work especially when it's pointed out that he's been harassing for years and he just uses those that ignore him as a easy-access platform to continue ranting. It also gives off the feeling that we don't care someone's getting harassed, that harassment is acceptable. Finally that ignore solution proposed wasn't also universally agreed even 10 years ago so imo this whole "I know RationalWiki" isn't even accurate by assuming everyone held the same views at the time. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:15, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

7. what does this achieve exactly? if this chap is this persistent this wont stop them, barely slow them down and has only produced acrimony here. are not VPNs readily available to make range blocks futile? you are looking for a quick fix or permanent solution short of legal action that doesn't exist. block when they appear and don't otherwise respond. that's it. there is no satisfying action to be taken here. this is neither a decisive nor effective action, and there is little point in underlining how odious this guy or highlighting how opposed to harassment you are when all you are doing is making yourself feel like you are a making a stand but really just fuelling his ego. he must be pleased to know what an effect hes been havingAMassiveGay (talk) 21:17, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

   To be fair, I didn't expect this much complaining over a range block, a function that doesn't have anywhere near as much controversy in other wikis. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

   This isn't other wikis.Scream!! (talk) 22:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

   Yes but some policy guidelines tend to be shared throughout wikis. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:47, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

   I regret voting for you. Public School Girl (talk) 22:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

   This is all over... what, a small, temporary rangeblock? If my arguments aren't good, then surely the votes will say so. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

8. I suppose from this troll's POV he is just being snarky. I repeat my previous statement, he is a nobody. Why should I care about him? Oxyaena is tough enough to deal with one assiduous troll whose father smelled of elderberries. If it could be promised the block would work I would be for it.Ariel31459 (talk) 21:31, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
9. Completely stupid idea cooked up by children. Ace^Moderator 23:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

   You're a piece of shit who never should have been mod. — Oxyaena ^Harass 23:18, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

   --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:21, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

   Can we please calm the fuck down? Thank you. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 23:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

   I don't want to inflame the situation, but why did you van my boyfriend when he wasn't even harassing me but give Oxyaena free reign to harass Ace with these flaming comments? Public School Girl (talk) 23:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

   Yes you do. The whole point of your comments is to inflame. Seriously, get your boyfriend to back the fuck off. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 23:34, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

   Get Oxyaena and Dysk to stop sending him harassing emails and pornography while acting like they are victims of harassment. I'm going to leave now because I don't want to be in the middle of this. Hugs. Public School Girl (talk) 23:42, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

   More personal insults from a mod. It seems Ace is more concerned with spiting people and inflaming conflict than actual moderation.🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄^{Ask about our holiday specials!} 23:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

what are you talking about? There’s no personal insult. I’m giving opinion. Mods are just users until required to mod. If and when I need to mod I’ll mod but there is no personal insult. It’s my opinion the IP blocks like this are from people who can’t ignore a troll - children. Ace^Moderator 23:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

It is really astounding to see a user calling another user a "piece of shit" over tedious disagreements about policy...and equally incredible to see a newly elected mod inflaming that person again and again. ShabiDOO 01:07, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

The fuck? I’m not flaming anyone. Ace^Moderator 01:19, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Ace, you seem to not even recognize when you're insulting people ("children", "boy", "numbnuts"),[5] which I can only assume indicates a lack of self-awareness. You could have just said, "Oppose", "Oppose because it's stupid", or "Oppose because it's bad policy", "Oppose because it will be ineffective". People might respect your opinion if you did that. Bongolian (talk) 03:56, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Listen man, if your offended because I referred to the decision to implement a range block as childish then the problem isn’t with me. Ace^Moderator 04:04, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

That's not what I said. Bongolian (talk) 04:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Look at it this way Bongo: You can be the good cop and Ace can be the bad cop. It might work.Ariel31459 (talk) 05:03, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

But it is flaming. Also, you didn't just call the decision "childish," you literally called the people who implemented the initial block "wet childish idiots." It's right there on this page. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Goat

Per Morris's vandalism:

(by the way, your range block did nothing; all I had to do was change a setting on my phone to get a new range)

Allegedly, Morris can change ranges. What will we do in this instance? Block all T-mobile IP ranges? I've already listed a crapton above.—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 13:28, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

morris can get new ip ranges fairly easily this is true, but on mobile he can only really switch between a limited number of local ranges. its unlikely he could access all of the IP addresses available to t-mobile. EK (talk) 14:33, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

But if he were to switch ranges, wouldn't it be a guessing game? Additionally, my post above illustrated he has used T-mobile IPs outside the 2607:FB90:9/48 range.—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 14:36, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

ye like this rangeblock is smaller than originally proposed and does not cover all his access, but its actually not that easy for him to mess with the advanced settings on his phone and restart it just to randomly get a new IP address that may still be in the blocked range. EK (talk) 14:41, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

The question I would have is how computer-savvy this guy really is, I'm not familiar with the full background of this troll. It actually would not be too difficult for a committed intelligent troll to evade a range ban (I see evidence of the committed but less evidence of the intelligent :) ). It might however be inconvenient enough depending on circumstances and maybe just not "fun" enough for him to continue trolling. I'm neutral on this for this reason, I'm not sure if it will work per se. But I'm not liking some of the foul-mouthed appeal to tradition that I see in the anti-camp. Soundwave106 (talk) 01:43, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Question: should this vote be happening in a place where more Sysops may see it, or is this page OK? ℕoir LeSable (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

As I said at the beginning, someone is welcome to put up a site-wide notice. I actually don't know the mechanics of that. Bongolian (talk) 20:41, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Site-wide is a bit much. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:18, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I would hope that none of those voting are sock accounts. Is anyone monitoring that?Ariel31459 (talk) 15:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

No. I was never a cheerleader either. Public School Girl (talk) 22:28, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: "Public School Girl" was part of Morris' endless drama (RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive86) and is not a Sysop. Bongolian (talk) 03:46, 11 December 2019 (UTC) Public School Girl should not be allowed to vote because 1) she is not a Sysop and 2) She is a drama queen who has previously been influenced by Morris to interfere on RW. Bongolian (talk) 18:28, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Result

There have been no new votes for two days, so I think that it's safe to conclude that this range block proposal has been approved at 11 to 9. Discussion has moved on to general policy over range blocks, and a separate vote can be held over that if it appears that there might be some agreement on a proposal. Whoever would like to can implement this particular range block. Bongolian (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I'll do it.Summa Atheologica (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@Summa Atheologica@Bongolian I see you blocked 2607:FB90:9:0:0:0:0:0/48. Can you block 2607:FB90::/32? Per the conversation above, Dmorris operates outside this range.—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 13:53, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

In fact you can see here that the range block failed to block him on your userpage. I went ahead and blocked the range 2607:FB90::/32.—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 14:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Thinking this over, the range should of been 2607:FB90:9::/40. I added 8 twice by accident, so it was really 2607:FB90:90::/48, sorry. 2607:FB90::/32 is a better block range anyway.—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 14:07, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposed solution

This going back and forward isn't really getting anywhere so I have a proposed solution. I was very anti this recent IP range block because of the lack of consultation and vote but that doesn't mean to say I would be anti range block in totality so here is a proposed solution. If someone believes a range block is required then follow these steps:

• Alert the mods with diff-links showing account creations and harassment. This should be a high benchmark of evidence to meet. None of those "I suspect these account creations are the same user" but each account actually making harassing posts with these accounts coming one after another over a long period of time, not a day for example - should really be over a period of months. We'll need to expand on this but just for the point of illustration I am keeping this brief.
• The mods will discuss the implications, range and time frame but must have a majority of mods in agreement.
• Once the range and length has been decided on it goes to the mob for a vote - period lasting one week to allow for discussion
• Action is either taken or not.

How does that suit? Will obviously need some more specifics but I think this something that might satisfy pro v. anti range blocks. Ace^Moderator 19:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

That is an extremely bad idea. It would result in administrative paralysis as it takes months to even begin a response to any vandal. A one-week vote would allow the vandal to wreck complete havoc during that grace period. A more flexible system is needed, with quick mod approval to deal with problems (as happened with Lefty and my Bar proposal). In comparison, many successful coops, such as the final one against UT, are undertaken with fewer difflinks. In cases where the situation is serious enough for a range block to be proposed, the mods will have known about the pattern for months already.Summa Atheologica (talk) 20:30, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

We aren’t talking about vandals, vandals are binned immediately so where did you get the idea this applies to vandals? This relates only to the use of range blocks. We don’t use range blocks against vandals. Ace^Moderator 20:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok, perhaps a poor choice of wording on my part. Morris may be a vandal, but he is mostly a troll/harasser, and the relevant identities are associated in my mind.Summa Atheologica (talk) 20:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with vandals. This is policy designed to formalise usage of the range block tool - if at all. It should be a very high bar to reach. Ace^Moderator 20:40, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I already described my position on why such a high bar is a bad idea.Summa Atheologica (talk) 20:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

A range block is an incredibly powerful tool and shouldn’t be used against just anyone. Ace^Moderator 20:48, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

And then, suddenly, the Earth exploded and humans were wiped off the face of the planet. Visiting aliens put together the pieces and worked out the story. Foolish beings, they shouldn't have put in place that minimal temporary range block. They might still be around if it weren't for the unregulated implementation of that powerful tool. When will humanoids learn? ShabiDOO 21:48, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

So, it neither creates nor prevents a real disaster, is that it?Ariel31459 (talk) 21:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ace McWicked This isn't "just anyone" we're talking about. Morris is a serial troll, stalker and harasser who has been plaguing this wiki for years and harassing our sysops off-site as well.Summa Atheologica (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Which is why I proposed the above solution for the next time a Morris comes along. This isn't that hard. This is a proposal for future use of the range block tool. Ace^Moderator 22:19, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I think it would be more useful to quantify the need for a range block by total number of blocked accounts over a short period of time from the IP range. Range blocks are a powerful tool yes and shouldn't be used unless there's no other venue or if other venues already have been tried. That said, harassment or dedicated vandal campaigns can appear from any location and can escalate very quickly, so limiting the ability to put a stop to them by requiring several months of evidence and bad behavior to pile up is a bit too much. The same goes for the vote length, if it is an urgent need to range block a swathe of IPs (as in "Wiki breaks unless we range block these IPs"), then it can be shortened to for example a day, but I'd say that is something that would need a 2/3rd majority from elected Moderators in a separate vote so that not every instance of a range block is automatically urgent. The Crow (talk) 09:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

If we are going to range-block then we certainly need a formalized system. Historically we had a lot more users (and trolls for that matter) on the site and a debate about this would certainty have taken a week. Given that we do not have so many editors now we can probably get resolutions quicker so a week may be overkill.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 11:32, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

considering the potential for misuse (or just simply fucking it up), and the fact that range blocks are clearly very divisive, it absolutely needs to formalised.

and with the example of morris who has apparently been an issue for 'years', then a 'week' is no time at all. not convinced its an effective measure for that example, but that's neither here nor there.

personally, I feel blocking in general should be little more formalised. an argument that I have noted in the past few week (not predominantly I admit, but it does rile me whenever I see it) is that we have guidelines and they are 'only' guidelines. this is true and they need to be flexible, but they are not 'only' guidelines - they are, or should be, best practise and you should be able and be prepared to defend not adhering to them and should be able and be prepared to defend each and every block. Consistency will help here, and should be a goal. I feel like this could apply to reverting comments on talk pages too.

probably would have been better to say this during earlier discussions, where it was more relevant, but I really didn't feel like adding to acrimony that has been present, so...ta daAMassiveGay (talk) 12:45, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

also, the block policy page could be a little easier to find. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:49, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

The block policy is linked in the RationalWiki:Sysop Guide#Blocking_and_vandal-binning and a short summary of the policy is is found there. The Crow (talk) 13:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I know where it is, but perhaps a link to policy of all kinds should be added to side bar for easy reference AMassiveGay (talk) 13:49, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ we don't use rangeblocks that often and normally it has been only for a short period. Imo requiring mod permission is a perfectly reasonable choice. EK (talk) 14:54, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I will say that I'm not happy that the previous range block discussion in the Saloon Bar all happened while i was asleep. We don't all live in the same time zone, you know. Alert all us mods and give us some time to reply. Spud (talk) 15:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion, rather than a specific period of time, list a minimum duration and a maximum duration. So, for example, we could say something along the lines of "A vote concerning range blocks must take no fewer than 24 hours, and no greater than 7 days." Thus we gain clarity as well as flexibility. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:23, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

That sounds good. Spud (talk) 15:47, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I propose that the votes take no less than 20 hours and no more than 5 days, with an ability to rangeblock (with mod approval) before holding a vote.Summa Atheologica (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

So you're proposing two votes per range block, one among mods followed by one among sysops? That seems unnecessary. Bongolian (talk) 21:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

No. I'm proposing first asking for a mod's permission (like I did with Lefty), and then, if permission is granted and the block implemented, and somebody complains, taking it to a vote.Summa Atheologica (talk) 22:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't come down to a single mod - we have more than one for a reason. Lefty isn't some super mod - lefty is a mod like all the others. Ace^Moderator 03:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

You're proposing just range-blocking on a whim with a single mod going yeah then waiting to see if someone complains before taking it to the community. That isn't how a community works. Ace^Moderator 03:16, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

It could potentially be any mod, not just Lefty. If nobody complains, that means the block is uncontroversial, and no vote is needed. This allows greater flexibility in dealing with urgent threats.Summa Atheologica (talk) 03:58, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

"Urgent threats?" What are urgent threats? We have the vandal bin for anything urgent as well as regular blocking. Ragne blocking shouldn't just be used against some regular troll or vandal. If nobody complains, that means the block is uncontroversial Well that's just stupid. There are multiple reasons people wouldn't complain, mainly because no one follows the block logs and wouldn't even know. We have multiple mods for a reason which is why range block discussion should be put before the mods not a mod. Then the community should also weigh in. Ace^Moderator 06:16, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes. This should indeed be a decision for all the mods. Not for the mod you think will agree with you. And I don't want to miss out on another important decision like this again because it was taken at 2:00 AM in my timezone while I was asleep. Spud (talk)

^ - What he said. Ace^Moderator 07:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what an "urgent threat" would be. So I'm not convinced we need a means of dealing with them.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 10:25, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Figure in hindsight I should've waited a while but IMO, the real problem was the lack of guidelines plus my experience with range blocks in other wikis being not anywhere near as controversial so I was under impression that range blocks required only minimal discussion (and it's not made "on a whim" as Ace keeps on insisting). There was no way I was going to expect a ton of resistance and uncalled-for vitrol. It's a problem when someone decided to bring up an obscure vote a around a decade ago and assume that's policy I was supposed to know in the first place. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMarioI didn't say this current Range Block was made on a whim, I was stating that what Summa was suggesting amounted to just using a range block on a whim. Ace^Moderator 21:33, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I see. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario I'd just like you to know I still think you're really great Although we've disagreed on this point, I know that everything you do you do for the good of this wiki and for the users that really want to improve it. And for what it's worth, I think that a good mod will inevitably sound a bit like a high school principal at one time or another. Spud (talk) 06:31, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

That's comforting to know, so thanks a lot for taking the time to reassure me. I also think it all boils down to a matter of disagreement over mod policy and not some litmus test for mod competence so it's not personal to me that you respectfully disagree. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 09:56, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Ban list

I am not sure which user started drafting this, might have been user D, but there was a good idea to create a ban list on RationalWiki for users that have been indefinitely banned here (cooped). Users like Abd, Morris etc. We can list their usernames, and a link to their cooping and ban. I highly recommend this. Then if any more socks turn up we can cite the ban list. This might work better than range blocks. John66 (talk) 22:40, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Literally every well-established regularly editing sysop here already has a mental ban list of these people. The reason the range block was necessary is not because people couldn't recognize Morris (they recognized him and banned him dozens of times) but that his use of an IP range allowed him to evade our blocks.Summa Atheologica (talk) 22:43, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

we have massive archives with lists of known sockpuppets and interest areas on discord but it was decided that putting them on the wiki would cause drama and take too much work. EK (talk) 23:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

The idea of maintaining a ban list on RationalWiki would be more trouble than it's worth, and it would be a magnet for drama and asshattery. It is borderline missional and belongs on a RationalWikiWiki-like site. Cosmikdebris (talk) 01:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Oh, will RWW be resurrected once more? 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄^{Ask about our holiday specials!} 01:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I definitely say a big no to a ban list. The trolls would love that. They'd make it their goal to get on to the ban list and see it as glorifying what they'd done. Getting on it would be the ultimate aim of the "How to play RationalWiki troll" game on Uncyclopedia. The dickheads at Kiwi Farms and Encyclopaedia Dramatica would go on about it all the bloody time. No. Just no. Spud (talk) 02:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Fair play. There is a global ban list on Wikipedia though and it seems to have worked in scaring off certain vandals. John66 (talk) 02:25, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

We already have the built-in block list that's part of the MediaWiki software, which should suffice for this purpose. Cosmikdebris (talk) 14:09, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@Spud Didn't Wikipedia used to have one of those until they deleted it? Or do they still have it? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie I wasn't aware of such a list. Apart from nominating a few articles for deletion, I really haven't had much to do with the bureaucratic side of Wikipedia. I've just found out that they do have this page that has links to the pages generated by the MediaWiki software. I still, however, have the feeling that getting on to a RationalWiki banned list would be something that trolls would crow about more because it would have a political element to it largely missing from getting on to a Wikipedia one. Spud (talk) 06:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of a ban list in this wiki, but if that ever becomes "do or die", then I'd compromise and say that list has to be cleaned out, feathers and all, periodically. Which means more maintenance, which is already constrained by an absurd hypothetical I cooked up. If you want to inform newer users of recurring trolls, taking the time to write a good, neutral ban summary would be fine. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 10:01, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

GrammarCommie - There is a ban list for Wikipedia users (the list was created by Abd ul-Rahman Lomax), here it is [6]. "This is a list of globally banned users, either by the community process or by the Wikimedia Foundation." John66 (talk) 16:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't see why we need a ban list. All of our frequent flier trolls behave irritatingly enough to get themselves blocked on sight regardless of whether or not anyone recognizes them. Plus, they show up often enough that even our newer sysops catch on to them quick. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄^{Ask about our holiday specials!} 16:07, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Would any of you oppose if I drafted a ban list at some point? Just to see what it might look like? John66 (talk) 16:49, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't object, as long as you create it on a site that is not RationalWiki. Cosmikdebris (talk) 17:04, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, well. Abd created the ban list upon which he now resides. That's nicely ironic. Bongolian (talk) 17:26, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

And he's currently suing the Wikimedia Foundation (he is pro-se) because he claims his username on that list is "defamation". You couldn't make this stuff up. He even commented on the talk-page of the ban list "This page allows looking at bans over time, it's useful for analysis." I suppose in his view it was useful until he was placed on the list himself. John66 (talk) 18:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

it was only a list of community bans when abd created it, the WMF office ban list was overwritten onto it later. its the implied meaning of the publication of the WMF office ban which is the issue in the lawsuit iirc and nothing to do with the list itself, tho Abds own explanation made more sense of the situation but its too much to go into detail here. Anyway dysk already drafted a ban list for this site in his userspace but as I already explained that project was moved to discord to reduce drama and trolling, so from then on that's where the info was held. EK (talk) 20:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

No it wasn't originally a community ban list. This was the original list Abd created [7], he starts the list with the line "This is a list of globally banned users" and the first user he added was not community banned (Poetlister), he was globally banned. Abd was happy to publicize other peoples global bans but when he was banned apparently nobody can publicize it. When his lolsuit is dismissed we can all laugh about it and update his RationalWiki article. John66 (talk) 21:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

no u don't understand, global bans on Wikipedia are community imposed sanctions and are completely different to the WMF office bans carried out by the WMF foundation. EK (talk) 21:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Apologies. You are correct the original list Abd created was for global bans on Wikipedia but the WMF office bans were added to it with no objections from him shortly after. Abd commented on the talk-page on 20 December 2015 that the list covers all banned users and he had no objections to the publication of WMF bans. Abd never complained about that. If he had not created the original list, there probably would not be that list documenting WMF office bans. So which ever way you look at it, he is responsible for the list. If you check the talk-page he commented "This page allows looking at bans over time, it's useful for analysis" on 6 October 2017, by this he meant all bans including the WMF office bans. He was thus supportive of the list publicizing WMF office bans and the WMF lawyers are probably aware of this. Like I said he was happy for publication of users bans but just not his. The WMF bans do not list any reason so they are not defaming anyone. When I first read over this lawsuit my first thought was, "where is the defamation"? No defamation appears to exist. This sort of lawsuit wastes the courts time. I was sued over something very petty in the early 90s and the case was dismissed. I know how certain crazy people abuse the legal system, and there is a prime example of it right here. John66 (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

If D is active again, if possible get him to email me the list he drafted. I would be interested in seeing it and expanding it (off-site). John66 (talk) 21:32, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@John66 dysk has recently become active again on discord fyi. EK (talk) 21:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Evil Reptilian Overlord and BluePink

May want the mods to sort this out before it gets out of hand. I'll ping @BluePink and @Evil Reptilian Overlord here. — Oxyaena ^Harass 14:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Looks like there may be a truce (User talk:BluePink#Stalking), but if either party still has an issue with the other, they are welcome to bring it up here. Bongolian (talk) 17:31, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Page worthy by now?

Is you-know-who worthy of a page by now? Maybe even a CP page since he has an account there? Tinribmancer (talk) 09:43, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Don't give him attention. — Oxyaena ^Harass 11:09, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

No. This isn't RationalWikiWiki. We only have pages about people who have edited/vandalized/trolled/made legal threats against this wiki unless they have done something worthy of our attention away from this site. And, yeah, it would be a huge mistake to draw any more attention to the cunt. Spud (talk) 12:01, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

They have been doing this for years, so I'd say they qualify except for the fact that drawing attention is what they want. — Oxyaena ^Harass 12:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

A page would not be sensible, useful or appropriate.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 13:28, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

It's stupid to even consider it. — Oxyaena ^Harass 13:39, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

No. Just no. Cosmikdebris (talk) 16:22, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I`m archiving this before he sees it. — Oxyaena ^Harass 16:33, 28 December 2019 (UTC)