RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation/Archive25
User: Prince of Glantri[edit]
Hi. The user Prince of Glantri once had a temporary ban for vandalizing and blanking the Sigmund Freud page. I occasionally edit the sexual orientation articles on Wikipedia and noticed this user had a suspiciously similar interest to a banned user from there. This said Wikipedia user would constantly inject Freuds view of homosexuality into everything and was obsessed with all the old-school freudian books on homosexuality. Notice how Prince of Glantri also posted a long list criticizing the rationalwiki articles criticms of Freud... most of them pertaining to: homosexuality! If this is the same person (as I believe it is), he is a self-confessed failure of conversion therapy who hates himself. He once *snapped* at everyone on Wikipedia about how he wasn't born gay because he has a "distant father and overbearing mother" (poor thing) but there's no saving him. I noticed this edit he once posted on the Homosexuality article where he questions why exactly the overbearing mother theory is crazy, and this edit where he removed this piece from the conversion therapy group NARTH page (lmao it's definitely him). He's a massive pain in the ass, he will argue till the cows come home... and he had about 20 different sockpuppets on Wikipedia alone, the most recent of which was named Freeknowledgecreator. Given his recent drawn out and boring arguments he made here on this talk page just today, which are exactly like that of his wikipedia sockpuppet, I would suggest an immediate block (even if there is no 'proof' it's the same person, he is clearly here to cause trouble). There's nothing worse than a psychotic socky. Debunky (talk) 11:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- it's not ban evasion if they haven't been banned here only on Wikipedia. So really I don't see any problem unless they become a problem here based on their actions here. There certainly isn't anything blockable about being boring on talk pages but keep an eye on their edits I suppose. — Z 11:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Alright thanks for clarifying. They had a temporary ban here as I outlined (how long, I don't know). Debunky (talk) 12:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- And it was a temporary ban eight fucking years ago for fuck's sake! Spud (talk) 13:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Donn't be such a bleeding heart! If someone once did something wrong somewhere then they clearly should be banned from everywhere else on the internet for ever!Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Lmao "fucking years ago for fucks sake". If someone comes on RW and is a blatant troll editor, supporter of NARTH and Joseph Nicolosi
then it should be known. But ~whatever~. Debunky (talk) 22:03, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Debunky's comments about me are abusive and insulting. I am not complaining about them, and Debunky should feel free to make abusive and insulting comments about me if he wishes. For the record, however, I would never make equivalent comments about Debunky, not because I would probably be blocked if I did, but because insulting someone in that way has no appeal. For the record, I am not a "supporter" of NARTH (which isn't called "NARTH" any longer) or of the late Joseph Nicolosi. Prince of Glantri (talk) 23:08, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Yawn, glad to see you admit it's you. Why are you even on Rationalwiki, except to troll and push Freudian explanations for everything? The same thing you did on Wikipedia with your 20 sockpuppets. Disruptive editing, arguing nonstop and stringing people around to make them look like the aggressor while you get off on wasting peoples time. It's odd behavior. And yes, you are a supporter of Nicolosi. You relentlessly defended his wikipedia page, and wrote giant articles dedicated to his pseudoscientific book (which have since been merged). Medical experts on Wikipedia like Mark Worthern also noted your disruptive editing and Freud–NARTH POV pushing. If anyone has any questions simply compare my edit history to his and you'll see who actually is here with good intentions. Debunky (talk) 23:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- All I said was that I did not care that you abused and insulted me. I did not say, or imply, that anything you have said about me is actually correct. Prince of Glantri (talk) 00:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Yawn, glad to see you admit it's you. Why are you even on Rationalwiki, except to troll and push Freudian explanations for everything? The same thing you did on Wikipedia with your 20 sockpuppets. Disruptive editing, arguing nonstop and stringing people around to make them look like the aggressor while you get off on wasting peoples time. It's odd behavior. And yes, you are a supporter of Nicolosi. You relentlessly defended his wikipedia page, and wrote giant articles dedicated to his pseudoscientific book (which have since been merged). Medical experts on Wikipedia like Mark Worthern also noted your disruptive editing and Freud–NARTH POV pushing. If anyone has any questions simply compare my edit history to his and you'll see who actually is here with good intentions. Debunky (talk) 23:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Debunky's comments about me are abusive and insulting. I am not complaining about them, and Debunky should feel free to make abusive and insulting comments about me if he wishes. For the record, however, I would never make equivalent comments about Debunky, not because I would probably be blocked if I did, but because insulting someone in that way has no appeal. For the record, I am not a "supporter" of NARTH (which isn't called "NARTH" any longer) or of the late Joseph Nicolosi. Prince of Glantri (talk) 23:08, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Lmao "fucking years ago for fucks sake". If someone comes on RW and is a blatant troll editor, supporter of NARTH and Joseph Nicolosi
- Donn't be such a bleeding heart! If someone once did something wrong somewhere then they clearly should be banned from everywhere else on the internet for ever!Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- And it was a temporary ban eight fucking years ago for fuck's sake! Spud (talk) 13:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Alright thanks for clarifying. They had a temporary ban here as I outlined (how long, I don't know). Debunky (talk) 12:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- it's not ban evasion if they haven't been banned here only on Wikipedia. So really I don't see any problem unless they become a problem here based on their actions here. There certainly isn't anything blockable about being boring on talk pages but keep an eye on their edits I suppose. — Z 11:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Move to strike[edit]
I have just arrived at my hotel after an 8 hour cross country commute and see this gibberish. Move to strike this off into the archives. AceModerator 10:18, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Drunk vandal?[edit]
2001:8003:59DB:4100:35D9:53DE:C053:29DB Rolled back 3 edits from them tonight, none seemed to serve any purpose besides self amusement Glitch (talk) 05:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- That was just mindless generic vandalism. It happens all the time. The best thing you can currently do is quietly revert it and then forget about it.Spud (talk) 06:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- I'm still getting used to the wiki way of doing things. I had a feeling they were going to keep doing it though and I didn't relish reverting all night, wasn't sure how to flag for a ban/block/whatever by a mod. Is this the best way to make that happen, or did I miss a procedure that could've gotten faster results? Glitch (talk) 06:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- The people that do that kind of mindless generic vandalism don't usually vandalize that many pages and don't usually keep at it for very long. It's the ones who are trying to make some kind of political point that tend to be much more persistent. I really wouldn't recommend using this mod noticeboard as a way to draw more senior editors' attention to a vandal. Quite probably, by the time any mods see this, the vandal will have been gone for hours. Again, I'll say just revert it and ignore it. That kind of vandalism usually gets noticed soon enough by a sysop who can give the vandal a short block. You'll probably be a sysop soon enough and then you can just handle the situation yourself. Spud (talk) 07:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- I’m a drunk vandal. I got pissed and drew a picture of penis on a fence. AceModerator 09:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- Ah, point taken. Thank you for educating me. I do learn, albeit slower than I'd like. Glitch (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- ...How old were you when you did that? Gunther1987 (talk) 16:33, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- I’m a drunk vandal. I got pissed and drew a picture of penis on a fence. AceModerator 09:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- The people that do that kind of mindless generic vandalism don't usually vandalize that many pages and don't usually keep at it for very long. It's the ones who are trying to make some kind of political point that tend to be much more persistent. I really wouldn't recommend using this mod noticeboard as a way to draw more senior editors' attention to a vandal. Quite probably, by the time any mods see this, the vandal will have been gone for hours. Again, I'll say just revert it and ignore it. That kind of vandalism usually gets noticed soon enough by a sysop who can give the vandal a short block. You'll probably be a sysop soon enough and then you can just handle the situation yourself. Spud (talk) 07:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- I'm still getting used to the wiki way of doing things. I had a feeling they were going to keep doing it though and I didn't relish reverting all night, wasn't sure how to flag for a ban/block/whatever by a mod. Is this the best way to make that happen, or did I miss a procedure that could've gotten faster results? Glitch (talk) 06:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
We should remove Godless Raven from sysoprevoke[edit]
He's significantly improved his behavior and never really abused his rights very much anyways, barring a novice's misunderstanding of RationalWikian procedure. With his rights restored he'll be even more useful as an editor--Hastur! (talk) 17:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- Second. Raven has significantly improved his conduct and has proven a valuable contributor.
Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 17:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- Should we call a vote or just leave it up for the mods to decide? I'm inclined to say that three moderators in agreement ought to be enough to make this happen, barring vehement objection--Hastur! (talk) 17:10, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- I definitely think a couple more weeks are in order. ShabiDOO 17:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- It's been over a month and he's been behaving pretty well for longer than that. He's civil with GC and Oxyaena has been defanged--Hastur! (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- I is a mod (though G knows how!) and I concur that GR should be 'unsysoprevoked' (NEW WORD!) Scream!! (talk) 18:04, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- Not sure if I'm eligible to vote on it yet, but I'll endorse giving GR his mop back.Coigreach (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Coigreach Yes, you're eligible. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 18:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- Do we have to vote? I'm pretty confident a vote will go his way, but holding an official vote for every single thing is just so tedious. To me, taking somebody's rights away might require a vote but giving back said rights is less serious and I think a discussion is sufficient--Hastur! (talk) 19:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Coigreach Yes, you're eligible.
- Not sure if I'm eligible to vote on it yet, but I'll endorse giving GR his mop back.Coigreach (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- I is a mod (though G knows how!) and I concur that GR should be 'unsysoprevoked' (NEW WORD!) Scream!! (talk) 18:04, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- It's been over a month and he's been behaving pretty well for longer than that. He's civil with GC and Oxyaena has been defanged--Hastur! (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- I definitely think a couple more weeks are in order. ShabiDOO 17:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- Should we call a vote or just leave it up for the mods to decide? I'm inclined to say that three moderators in agreement ought to be enough to make this happen, barring vehement objection--Hastur! (talk) 17:10, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
As someone who started his coop; I'd say that he can get sysop back but on probation. Basically the moment he engages in any edit wars or gets someone to proxy his edit wars for him again, he loses it for good, no vote needed. Maybe draft something similar up for him as we suggested for Oxy (before she blew her chance at it). Perhaps Ronin could help with that. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / 
/ 
/ 
) 19:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- I would argue that the only grounds for sysoprevoke is user rights abuse. So if he desysops somebody he edit wars with (which I think he or Emblyn did at some point), or blocks a user who lacks block rights (Oxyaena), then he should lose his rights. Sysoprevoke is not a punishment, rather a preventative measure--Hastur! (talk) 19:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not opposed to removing sysoprevoke and I do think the behavior has been improved, has listened to us saying he should contribute to the wiki. He did what I wanted him to do. --It's-a me,
LeftyGreenMario! 19:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- I would go with what the Crow says. Give it him back under probation. ShabiDOO 20:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- I just think edit warring is just a smidge too harsh a criterion--Hastur! (talk) 20:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- The specific things that provoked his coop case was him constantly causing edit disputes and then either warring over them with others or getting Ze to handle them for him so that he doesn't technically break the edit war rules. I'm not opposed to a fairly lenient definition (something like "don't revert others' edits more than once every 24 hours on the same page" would cover it for me since he can of course protect the page for a day if he's dealing with a dispute with a non-sysopped member). Desysopping others wasn't really his territory as far as I know, that was Ze, GC, Oxy and Dysk if my memory serves me right. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / / / ) 20:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- Yes I blocked GC and desysoped to enforce that which caused Oxy to resysop GC and then GC to desysop me and Dysk to resysop me and desysop GC and desysop Oxy when I then resysoped GC and Oxy was resysoped then put in sysoprevoke for unrelated reasons. But Raven wasn't involved in that. — Z 05:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- The specific things that provoked his coop case was him constantly causing edit disputes and then either warring over them with others or getting Ze to handle them for him so that he doesn't technically break the edit war rules. I'm not opposed to a fairly lenient definition (something like "don't revert others' edits more than once every 24 hours on the same page" would cover it for me since he can of course protect the page for a day if he's dealing with a dispute with a non-sysopped member). Desysopping others wasn't really his territory as far as I know, that was Ze, GC, Oxy and Dysk if my memory serves me right. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! /
- I just think edit warring is just a smidge too harsh a criterion--Hastur! (talk) 20:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- I would go with what the Crow says. Give it him back under probation. ShabiDOO 20:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not opposed to removing sysoprevoke and I do think the behavior has been improved, has listened to us saying he should contribute to the wiki. He did what I wanted him to do. --It's-a me,
Done it! Only to autopatrolled though. Scream!! (talk) 21:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- I think it's too premature to desysoprevoke Raven given that he actively goads me and several other users on here for no good reason, and continues to shift blame onto other people. — Oxyaena Harass 06:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah but he hasn’t abused his sysop tools. And goading can be ignored or brought to mod attention. AceModerator 06:43, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Then by that measure I hadn't abused my sysop tools either, and why else was Raven desysopped if he didn't abuse his tools? @Ace McWicked — Oxyaena Harass 17:19, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- All sounds good to me.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:52, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- I don't have an opinion one way or the other, not sure it would (or should) matter if I did, but isn't "he hasn’t abused his sysop tools" a very bad argument because he couldn't have abused them, since they were taken away? Or am I misunderstanding what "sysoprevoke" means? Glitch (talk) 15:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Sysoprevoke basically means that a user can't use the rights that sysops have (page locking, page moving, deleting pages, reverting edits, blocking and unblocking users as well as bypassing a few rate limits that autoconfirmed/autopatrolled doesn't handle). We're not shy about giving out sysop here, almost every user has it. Being placed in sysoprevoke generally happens sparingly. Usually it's if someone abuses some of the previously mentioned powers, but recently the role for whatever reason has been used as a more general punishment. In GRs case, the motivation came due to issues with him edit warring with other users, usually by proxy which sometimes involved editing through page locks (which is highly frowned upon). That said, to my knowledge GR has improved his behavior, so he can be taken out of it (and has been taken out of it by Scream). Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / / / ) 15:40, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Sysoprevoke basically means that a user can't use the rights that sysops have (page locking, page moving, deleting pages, reverting edits, blocking and unblocking users as well as bypassing a few rate limits that autoconfirmed/autopatrolled doesn't handle). We're not shy about giving out sysop here, almost every user has it. Being placed in sysoprevoke generally happens sparingly. Usually it's if someone abuses some of the previously mentioned powers, but recently the role for whatever reason has been used as a more general punishment. In GRs case, the motivation came due to issues with him edit warring with other users, usually by proxy which sometimes involved editing through page locks (which is highly frowned upon). That said, to my knowledge GR has improved his behavior, so he can be taken out of it (and has been taken out of it by Scream). Techpriest (I am Alpharius! /
- Yeah but he hasn’t abused his sysop tools. And goading can be ignored or brought to mod attention. AceModerator 06:43, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Several different people have expressed concerns about demoting Raven, are we just going to ignore them? — Oxyaena Harass 17:19, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Everybody on this page, with the exception of a certain anarchist, expressed approval of restoring his user rights. Two users did so under the idea that he is on probation--Hastur! (talk) 17:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- There was also a discussion on my talkpage, with input from Flandres, Shabidoo, and AMassiveGay. — Oxyaena Harass 17:36, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- I don't see any posts from AMassiveGay on your talk page, Shabidoo has voiced his opinion on this page and he approves of restoring rights with probation. This leaves Flandres, who is welcome to pursue this debate here.--Hastur! (talk) 17:40, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed. "Somebody said something on my user page" is not the same as bringing the concern here.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- The concerns I have expressed are more behavioral than user rights related, hence why I did not post them here-that would be off topic. I have no strong views on this specific issue one way or another. If he actually did start abusing his user rights I know for a fact the community would crush him, because lets face it for several entirely justifiable reasons he is one of the least liked users here(fully deserved). There is little at stake when it comes to demoting him.-Flandres (talk) 17:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- There you have it, @Oxyaena. Hopefully you'll learn to behave and your next bid for getting your user rights restored will receive universal support like this one did, rather than a catastrophic failure--Hastur! (talk) 17:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Hastur, that is not helping. Now is not the time for gloating about a user rights issue that is weeks old. We are trying to STOP goading other users into conflict, remember? Hmhmhm...-Flandres (talk) 18:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- jawohl — Godless Raven
talkstalkwalkbalk 🌹 
18:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- There you have it, @Oxyaena. Hopefully you'll learn to behave and your next bid for getting your user rights restored will receive universal support like this one did, rather than a catastrophic failure--Hastur! (talk) 17:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- I don't see any posts from AMassiveGay on your talk page, Shabidoo has voiced his opinion on this page and he approves of restoring rights with probation. This leaves Flandres, who is welcome to pursue this debate here.--Hastur! (talk) 17:40, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- There was also a discussion on my talkpage, with input from Flandres, Shabidoo, and AMassiveGay. — Oxyaena Harass 17:36, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
I guess this can be archived, mods. Issue solved. — Godless Raven talkstalkwalkbalk 🌹 18:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- It's clearly not solved. — Oxyaena Harass 18:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- No, it’s definitely settled. Multiple mods agreed to lift sysoprevoke. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 20:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- No, it’s definitely settled. Multiple mods agreed to lift sysoprevoke.