RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation/Archive44

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Unclescrooge again[edit]

Gonna bring this up since Hastur is being Hastur and unbanning this person without any reason. Anyway, after being banned for over 3 months by a unanimous vote, Unclescrooge returned just to do the exact same thing he was originally banned for, trolling on talk pages with an added bonus of overused transphobia, showing that he didn't learn a damn thing from his 3 month block. If one 3 month block didn't work, there's no way in hell another 3 month block will do the trick. So how do you propose we deal with this problematic user? Plutocow (talk) 00:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I suggest a quick vote on permaban of Unclescrooge right here after the requisite 24 hours. Bongolian (talk) 00:25, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
I am neutral a permaban, but I support a very long block (a year at least). Maybe he will mature by fall 2022.--Andrew5 (talk) 00:34, 11 September 2021 (UTC)


It appears Scrooge is blocked for 23 hours, unbanned just before vote. Well, that's what happens when you troll (as shown above). --Andrew5 (talk) 00:50, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Wait doesn't this belong at RW:CC? --Andrew5 (talk) 00:51, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Due to continued trolling, I have banned Unclescrooge for 23 hours. Any further trolling by Unclescrooge after that will get a ban for the duration of the vote. A person is entitled to defend themselves but not by trolling. Bongolian (talk) 00:52, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
CC is not necessary as per Community standards. It can take place here. Bongolian (talk) 00:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
We at least tried giving him the benefit of the doubt. I'm not surprised, but he's wasted his second chance. I'll be supporting any and all punishments, we don't need a straight laced bigot on the site. -- Techpriest (talk) 17:26, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
I will probably oppose a permaban, actually. Others have made points, such as HBC, as he didn't make a frivolous coop, or complain about the vandal bin. However, see below. The trolling does need to end and he needs to mature before editing RW. --Andrew5 (talk) 18:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
slides finger across neck. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png ๐ŸŽ„LeftyGreenMario!๐ŸŽ„ 19:04, 11 September 2021 (UTC).
This user is boring and doesn't deserve our attention-Hastur! (talk) 19:06, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Woops, sorry, just to clarify I was talking about Unclescrooge, not Plutocow.-Hastur! (talk) 19:07, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Then don't engage in efforts blocking others from doing things to people you don't care about. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png ๐ŸŽ„LeftyGreenMario!๐ŸŽ„ 19:57, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Possible other lengths?[edit]

I don't like a permaban, but pi months is too short? Maybe we can do pi quarters of a year, or pi years? Would those work? I don't like permabanning people who don't do hate speech or harassment, but trolling needs to end. --Andrew5 (talk) 18:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Nope. We promised in the coop the next motion to block will be indef. This user can go. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png ๐ŸŽ„LeftyGreenMario!๐ŸŽ„ 19:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
@Andrew5 Making fun of trans people and deliberately misgendering them is borderline hate speech.๐”–๐”ฒ๐”ช๐”ช๐”ž ๐”„๐”ฑ๐”ฅ๐”ข๐”ฌ๐”ฉ๐”ฌ๐”ค๐”ฆ๐” ๐”ž (๐”ฎ๐”ฒ๐”ข๐”ฏ๐”ข๐”ฉ๐”ฆ๐”ฐ) (๐”ฐ๐” ๐”ฏ๐”ฆ๐”ญ๐”ฑ๐”ฒ๐”ฏ๐”ž) 20:31, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
@Summa Atheologica #1 I didn't recieve that ping, as your signature is a template #2 Now that you phrase it like that, you might have persuaded me to support a motion like that. I never thought of it that way. @LeftyGreenMario Looking at RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive127, it seems to be a promise made by you and around eight other editors, but definitely not a good part of the mob.
tl;dr What's more important is determining the type of offense, in my opinion. Which, I think, is quite severe when I realize it now. --Andrew5 (talk) 20:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
An abusive and useless user should be cast off, so they can go find a website that has time for such nonsense. I have a feeling some users will ignore the veiled "gender identity" joke in a way they wouldn't ignore if it was a racist joke, but I would be delighted to be proven wrong. Scrooge has not just done a massive quantity of obnoxious shit that some users here don't mind tolerating, but has skirted policy by not engaging in constructive debate and incivility not to mention has been given multiple chances now. Perhaps not doing anything about this might embolden new users to engage in the same shit? Other lengths will just delay the inevitable. ShabiDOO 20:49, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
@Shabidoo I was reluctant, but should we ping Celeste? Maybe she could offer some words about the situation. I'd definitely support a permaban if she does. --Andrew5 (talk) 21:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Celeste is barely active here so I'm not sure how that would help much but to upset her and I am fairly sure she would take a zero tolerance approach. There are other members here, who if they choose to comment, might help inform your decision. ShabiDOO 21:45, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Ok. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 22:18, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Scrooge defense[edit]

@Unclescrooge You were just unblocked. In as soon as 23 minutes, a vote may be started. If you wish, please write a line of defense. Thanks. --Andrew5 (talk)

Vote for permabanning scrooge[edit]

This vote has been closed. Please do not add, remove or change votes.
The result of this vote was: Unclescrooge is permabanned (22-3, 88%)

Yes[edit]

  1. He had his chance, and he wasted it. Plutocow (talk) 00:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  2. Yes for the second time. It was nice not having this user around. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosoliniโ€™s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 00:29, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  3. He had his chance to mend his ways, then returned to immediately use alt-right terminology (Alt-right glossary#Ammosexual) to mock trans people in the Saloon ("My new gender identity is RationalWiki moderator"). Bongolian (talk) 00:30, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  4. My opinion to permanetly ban Unclescrooge is one I will regret, and I am very sad that it had to end this way, and I am very reluctant. But I feel it is for the best for RationalWiki, and partially due to personal pasts. What he did, after it was explained to me carefully by Shabidoo and Summa Atheologica, makes it actual transphobia. Considering I was banned from Uncyclopedia for 3 years for transphobia, as well as other causes but mainly that, and he had other issues, he should have 3 years (or here, pi years). There is also no check user, so in pi years, if he really cares and has matured, he can probably sneak back in. And I think that will happen. Normally, I only vote to permaban in extreme cases. This time, I think it's actually extreme circumstances. --Andrew5 (talk) 01:02, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  5. I am most definitely not ignoring his vile transphobia. It's extremely telling that the first thing he did after his block expired was try to be offensive. He's an unreformed and unrepentant troll and that's obviously not going to change any time soon. Good riddance to him. Spud (talk) 01:10, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  6. makes slitting neck motion --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png ๐ŸŽ„LeftyGreenMario!๐ŸŽ„ 01:26, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
    What's with the Madame Defarge routine?UncleKrampus (talk) 20:57, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  7. I support liberal totalitarianism, corporate communism, feminazism, and homofascism. That is all.๐”–๐”ฒ๐”ช๐”ช๐”ž ๐”„๐”ฑ๐”ฅ๐”ข๐”ฌ๐”ฉ๐”ฌ๐”ค๐”ฆ๐” ๐”ž (๐”ฎ๐”ฒ๐”ข๐”ฏ๐”ข๐”ฉ๐”ฆ๐”ฐ) (๐”ฐ๐” ๐”ฏ๐”ฆ๐”ญ๐”ฑ๐”ฒ๐”ฏ๐”ž) 02:32, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  8. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 03:22, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  9. Not surprised. Monet Ye 06:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  10. ๆญปใญ๏ผใƒˆใƒญใƒผใƒซ๏ผ (JoJo Part 3 spoilers) โ€” Exaskliri (they/them) (talk | contribs) 07:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  11. โ€” ๐—ฆ๐—พ๐—ฟ๐˜-๐Ÿญ talk stalk 07:32, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  12. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 08:28, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  13. I wonder if Scrooge will be forever repeating this pattern on internet forums: given extra chances and being warned, ignoring them and doing shitty things, displaying shock when they follow through and vote to ban despite occasional somewhat useful actions. ShabiDOO 10:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  14. Okay, we did the second longest normal block length before permaban and it quite literally had no effect at all on his behavior.-Flandres (talk) 13:28, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  15. โ€”April Chat? 15:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  16. He had a second chance, he wasted it immediately. I'm all in favor for a second chance, but a third would be silly if the second one is so blatantly disregarded. Blatant bigotry has no place here imo. -- Techpriest (talk) 16:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
    Arguably, that was more then his 2nd chance. He was blocked for pi months back in October 2020 (before he had a talk page), in a situation where he could have been indeffed. That did little. He has 76 entries in his block log. That's pretty impressive for a non sysop. I think this was his 3rd chance, at least. He got one in January, which he actually used. Honestly, a lot of shit in May before Coop 127 could have gotten him banned, and he did in the coop. This was his 3rd chance. And honestly, what he did could have gotten pi months or perma, as a first offense. --Andrew5 (talk) 16:29, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  17. It has been made abundantly clear to Scrooge of the consequences that would follow, if he continued his unflagging derogatory drivelโ€”and yet he persistsโ€”this is a striking example of peerless stupidity. Furthermore, the sporadic edits that arenโ€™t overtly derogatory, are simply useless for this community and its goals. Thus, I think it is high-time we debar him from this website, and expropriate him of his rights. LeucippusSalva veritate 16:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  18. Honestly, it's amazing we gave this blatantly bad faith user the amount of chances we gave them. ไธป่ฆ่กŒไบ‹ๆœˆ (talk) 13:46, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  19. The transgender jokes are not OK, especially considering that some users here are transgender and may feel threatened by Unclescrooge's comments. The socking is also tiresome and sophomoric. We offered Unclescrooge kindness by allowing them to redeem themselves after a 3 month ban. Such kindness has not been reciprocated and thus they should be permabanned. LongStylus (talk) 04:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
  20. Oh, for Bob's sake, this discussion is happening again? โ€”cosmikdebris talk stalk 15:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
  21. We gave them a chance. CorruptUser 16:38, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
  22. More trouble than he's worth. Dave Wise 2 (talk) 17:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

No[edit]

  1. I'm literally trying to add MASSIVE content to RW and some idiots are trying to permaban me over my new gender identity. Am I the only sane person left in this world?????????? C'mon everyone, please see that I'm working to improve this site while everyone voting to ban me hardly do any massive contributions nowadays!!! Unclescrooge (talk) 02:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
    Yes, but you didn't do a good enough job. One of your drafts, that I even helped with, got deleted as a lost cause - as was said about me on Uncyclopedia, using your articles won't work as it will likely be deleted. I don't want to get too deep in the links, but fuck it. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][[12][13][14][15], and much more. Actually this sounds similar to me on Uncyclopedia. You do a single transphobic act, but don't get shown mercy and get very long blocks as everyone else brings up everything bad you did. In both cases, WP:NOTHERE could apply. --Andrew5 (talk) 12:03, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  2. -Hastur! (talk) 06:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC) (expanded 18:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC))
  3. This guy is a clown, but it does not warrant a perma. (Profile) - (Spoke!) 14:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
    To make sure everyone is aware, TransChicken has 130 edits and is eligible. --Andrew5 (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
    Also he has been around for more than 3 months, so eligible. Still...a clown? Takes one to know one I guess. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 00:55, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

  • If he is banned, obviously {{banned}} will be added. Would it be worth, once it's done, to just copy/paste it to the coop so we have a link? --Andrew5 (talk) 01:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
    I think that a link to the ATM archive can be added to the Reason argument of that template. Bongolian (talk) 01:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
    Yeah I'll take care of that, dw. -- Techpriest (talk) 16:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Since this vote, Unclescrooge has created an article on Paul Gosar (which is now at Draft:Paul Gosar). It doesn't change my opinion, but putting it out here in case it does for someone else.--Andrew5 (talk) 01:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC) (updated 01:23, 12 September 2021 (UTC))
    Yeah, and the other draft Unclescrooge created was a few dross shit sentences that smells like something that a previously banned user would do. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 03:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
    I deleted the Draft:Public school closing page because it was a total fail, engaging in false analogy as its primary purpose. It made the analogy between Dixiecrats closing public schools to avoid desegregation, and temporary public school closures to prevent spread of COVID. Bongolian (talk) 16:08, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Past coop here for context. For the record, his three month ban had 24 votes in favor with not a single user opposed. Plutocow (talk) 06:26, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
    And a vote for permaban was 10-9 in favor, but since it only had 52.6% support, it failed.--Andrew5 (talk) 19:36, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • My only criticism is that all of this attention should be squandered on this incompetent chump.UncleKrampus (talk) 16:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • A reminder that if this passes, it would also result in the ban of User:Donald F. Duck, who is a known alt of Scrooge. Plutocow (talk) 22:05, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Never mind, I permabanned it early due to Scrooge using it to bypass his ban. Plutocow (talk) 01:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Is it time to close? It's been a week and somehow I don't think the tide will turn.-Flandres (talk) 17:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Ineligible[edit]

  1. Sayanora. It's Farmhand, BTW! (talk) 13:06, 13 September 2021 (UTC)


75.27.37.89[edit]

Persistent vandalism and blanking, including just a few minutes ago, please block. Probably for pi weeks at this point, used for vandalism since at least July. --Andrew5 (talk) 00:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Nvm, appears to have been blocked. --Andrew5 (talk) 11:56, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Socks of binned users[edit]

Typically, we do allow users to have extra accounts here, provided that they are not permabanned. However, there is a problem when it comes to users in the vandal bin. This is a situation that nearly came up with Unclescrooge and his sock Donald F. Duck, although since Scrooge was banned for the majority of the existence of the latter account, he wasn't able to do much with it. Still, if a user is vandal binned and has a sock account, even if the sock is also binned it effectively doubles their allowed edit rate. And if they're allowed to have one sock, what's stopping them from having ten or twenty socks and effectively getting around the vandal bin? I feel we should close this loophole by having a rule that sockpuppets of people who are in the vandal bin shouldn't be allowed, and any such sock accounts should be permabanned. Plutocow (talk) 21:19, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

We'll cross that line when it happens, but yeah, short but increasing blocks on socks if they're using socks to avoid the bin seems like a non-controversial idea to me. -- Techpriest (talk) 21:28, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
I think that we should make it so any user in the vandal bin may have 1 alt. While it does let them make one edit every 15 minutes, sometimes they have a practice purpose (e.g. User:Andrew5 mobile). I think anything besides that should be banned. Andrew5 (talk) 21:57, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

SysopRevoke for returning member[edit]

Question, if a person returns to the wiki with a new account, and their old account was Sysop-revoked, do we automatically add the sysoprevoke to the new account? And should the Techs (e.g., me) do so, or only Mods? CorruptUser 18:17, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the new account should be sysoprevoked if it's evidentially the same person. As decided earlier, although techs have the capacity to assign or remove sysoprevoke, they should refrain from doing so โ€” it could be considered abuse of power. Bongolian (talk) 18:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Well then I think this account (Andrew5 mobile) should be sysop revoked. --Andrew5 mobile (talk) 18:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Was referring to Catgrrl38. Catgrrl37 was sysoprevoked. CorruptUser 18:52, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Andrew5 mobile was already sysoprevoked by me on June 12. I have now sysoprevoked Catgrrl38. The original account was actually Catgrrl37-0. Bongolian (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
No, that was my main. My mobile account was created on August 19. Andrew5 (talk) 20:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

user pages[edit]

whats the rules for user pages, specifically using them to settle scores and/or carry on drama with less recourse for people to reply to dubious claims made there? yes, transchicken's userpage spurred this post, but remember that raven fella, long since banned, had a similar habit. if there are no rules concerning this kind of thing, shouldnt there be? AMassiveGay (talk) 22:10, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

RationalWiki:Community Standards#User pages. "An editor's user page, and other pages in their user space, is their personal space and they are free to do with it what they want (with common-sense-exceptions, such as patently offensive material, copyright violations or spam)." Whether blatant flamebaiting falls into one of the "common-sense exceptions" is up to interpretation. Plutocow (talk) 22:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
perhaps blatant flame baiting should be added. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:28, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Seems like discretion should be applied. RobSmith did this, same with a recently indef banned user, and I know another prominent long-term user whose current userpage is a bratty temper tantrum directed at the site. Should a policy change be applied to them, then? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png ๐ŸŽ„LeftyGreenMario!๐ŸŽ„ 23:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
probably. i dont know one of those you refer to, which kinda helps my case. one could be, for want of a better word, slandered and be oblivious to the fact while others stumbling across an offending talkpage colouring their opinions and interactions with you without any recourse. i mean, who looks at someones userpage more than one time after you first interact with someone, if that?AMassiveGay (talk) 23:42, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Ah, I believe my userpage improves upon repeat viewings. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosoliniโ€™s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 23:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
i rarely give more than cursory glance, and i give those those little infobox thigs that, many users have a wide berth. that kinda thing shouldnt make any difference to arguments someone might be making elsewhere, or influence my response to someones argument. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
EC id personally find it challenge to have find discussions i'd been involved in after the fact if i felt i needed to correct someones mischaracterisations of me. if someone wants to put 'their side of the story' they can do so openly where there is opportunity to challenge their account and at the very least provide links to back up their version of events. not leave it up to whoever they might be mischaracterising. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
We could hold a vote as to whether we should remove the flamebait from TC's userpage. It's at the very least disruptive, and the CS does state that a user's right to have what they want on their userpage isn't unlimited, even if "common sense" is a vague term. It's worth noting that there is precedent with RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/User:MarioSuperstar77/AceTemp. Plutocow (talk) 23:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Okay, so I'll go right out and say I was referring to Nutty, who in a prior revision, name dropped me in his page as part of a wider "problematic" trend with the wiki blocking users. His current page is what I'm describing as. I didn't want to name drop right away out of fear of judgement and retaliation (I still remember this remark he directed at me, which still hurts me today, hence my hesitation), but there, I said it. Would his page, especially the current revision, count? It's puerile and I don't like to bring it up and wish for it to be otherwise generally forgotten but if another user, like Godless Raven, did this, it would probably be another example for this discussion. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png ๐ŸŽ„LeftyGreenMario!๐ŸŽ„ 00:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Nutty's one of those "old guard" types who it seems got pissed off that this Wiki is no longer focused on being a Conservapedia troll playground. It's childish to make a stink about it in his user page like he does. But in my judgement I don't think the current page is terribly disruptive, it's just stupid (if he really feels that way he should de-mop himself and stop logging in to complain every time RW sysops ban a disruptive troll). TC's user page on the other hand is an obvious grudge shitpost to me and falls under the "childish and disruptive" category. There is no good reason to have it, it's there only to stir up drama. So personally, I think the discretion that already exists, that a judgement call should be made on whether it is disruptive or excessively offensive, is fine. TC's blatant disruptive flame-baiting probably counts, Nutty Roux's bizarre "I log into this site even though I hate it" user page probably doesn't. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 01:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
I see. I don't think we should take direct action on the pages, though, as much as I want to minimize drama and shit-stirring, because it can come off as disallowing complaints. I'm pretty neutral on the matter, I can see cases made for both "do" and "don't". --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png ๐ŸŽ„LeftyGreenMario!๐ŸŽ„ 02:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

โ”Œโ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”˜I think that if it rises to the level of harassment, it could be cause for disciplining. Since TC has no rights, its easy to apply short blocks to get the point across if necessary. Bongolian (talk) 02:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

It never will, I don't like harassment, that's also the reason why I didn't name anybody I was simply very vague about who I was talking to. For example, with the famous "The local communist" comment which angered Grammar Commie. I could be talking about anyone really since RW has this reputation of being a leftist website, so unless you have been on this site long enough you wouldn't know who I am talking to. I am opposed to the idea of harassment, that never solved anything. (Profile) - (Spoke!) 10:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
(EC) Sorry if this comment sounds stupid. But if you guys don't like a certain page you can just ignore it. The Internet doesn't exist to cater to anyone, and I do think this proposal boils down to "what I don't like". User pages were used by renegate contributors as a form to raise complaints about the site since Wikipedia's inception. I don't see why it should be different here. It's not like TC's comments are that disruptive, and I can't imagine an experienced user taking their word for granted. Even if someone does believe what TC is saying is true, who cares? If God was real, I'd swear in His name that you guys really need to learn how to ignore things you don't like. And before someone tells me to fuck off because I didn't do this in Machina's case, I believe it's quite different to ignore blantant homophobia (something that actually kills people) and posts you don't like on a small Wiki. GeeJayK (talk) 02:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Asking people to ignore things never solves anything, as even if 90% of people follow that advice the 10% that inevitably won't will cause problems. Plutocow (talk) 02:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
It's pretty clear to me that TC (along with another account swirling around it that both became suspiciously active after USHA's ban) is a sock or shitposter of some kind, which is part of why I lean in the disruptive direction; overall the childish user page fits other patterns. Apparently it is not clear yet to most people, so we will give it time and wait for the inevitable coop to yet again consume this site's energy (unless this account cleans up its act, which would surprise me quite a bit). It's both a charm and a curse that this site is stuck in the 2008 Internet model. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 13:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Could you please give me a break? What's up with your trust issues? Senioritas (talk) 19:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
He or she has them because the site gets raided repeatedly by Michael Coombs, and possibly Ken probably. (Profile) - (Spoke!) 19:58, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
You know, I didn't say who the user was, is there some sort of "trust issue" going on here? Heh heh. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 20:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Vote for removing flamebait from TransChicken's userpage[edit]

Since it's not a penalty vote, I think we can start it now. The questions at the center of this vote is if flamebait like TC has on their userpage qualifies as "patently offensive material" or if it is an unenumerated "common sense exception" per in the userpage section of RW:CS. Since this is largely a matter of interpretation, it can be left to a vote. Plutocow (talk) 02:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

This vote has been closed. Please do not add, remove or change votes.
The result of this vote was: Sixteen to three, no change

Remove[edit]

  1. I feel that flamebaiting is a common-sense exception for what should be allowed on userpages, since it's disruptive and causes drama. We do have some precident for this with the AceTemp decision, even if the creator deleted it before the vote could finish. Plutocow (talk) 02:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  2. more interested in policy, but in priniciple, this should go AMassiveGay (talk) 07:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
    Can you state a policy you would like to apply, revise or add that would cover this, then? Bongolian (talk) 15:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
    just adding blatant flamebaiting/trolling as a 'common sense exception'. it would still be a case by case basis, mind. just that specifically listed makes the inevitable wiki-lawyers easier to silence. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
    I think at least one entry still on my home page could have been considered flamebaiting. Bongolian (talk) 16:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
    i dont think anything singling out specific users should be permitted, tbh. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
    By that criterion, I have several violations. Bongolian (talk) 16:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  3. That userpage should go. Senioritas (talk) 19:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Leave as-is[edit]

  1. Don't like? Don't click on their name and you won't see it. Works for me, I hardly ever see things I don't like on the Internet. GeeJayK (talk) 02:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  2. Unless it's something that violates community standards (e.g., harassment or doxing), I'd prefer not to see an exception to this. Bongolian (talk) 03:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  3. ๐’ฎ๐‘’๐“‡๐‘’๐“ƒ๐‘’ talk 03:35, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  4. Holy fucking shit-cookies, transchicken is so outraged they need to air their own fragility over other people's fragility. What a ridiculous drama laden shit user page. I think it is fine leaving it up, it leaves no doubt to other users about their character and why they are here. ShabiDOO 08:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  5. (Profile) - (Spoke!) 10:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  6. Per Shabidoo. Thereโ€™s no good reason to go against the community standards here. Christopher (talk) 10:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  7. Scream!! (talk) 11:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  8. Per above. IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for removal.I'll be honest - I don't like it either. --Andrew5 (talk) 12:12, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
    thats not the argument being made so fuck offAMassiveGay (talk) 12:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
    It seems to be. You don't like the content on the userpage, so you want it gone. But it is there personal space. They can do these things there. I mean, don't click on it if you don't like it. I don't like it, but I know others didn't like what I put on my userpage. Lastly, I don't appreciate ad hominem statements like that.--Andrew5 (talk) 14:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
    thats literal bullshit. it goes without saying 'i dont like it', its banal to even mention it. but thats not the argument being made. look again AMassiveGay (talk) 14:56, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
    Oh, I see. I wouldn't say it causes flame wars or whatever they said, IMO. --Andrew5 (talk) 17:02, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
  9. ? Monet Ye 12:31, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  10. What Bongolian said above. โ€”cosmikdebris talk stalk 15:50, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  11. Won't solve the underlying problem. โ˜ญComrade GCโ˜ญMinistry of Praise 20:10, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  12. I think doing so would set a dangerous precedent against user autonomy.๐”–๐”ฒ๐”ช๐”ช๐”ž ๐”„๐”ฑ๐”ฅ๐”ข๐”ฌ๐”ฉ๐”ฌ๐”ค๐”ฆ๐” ๐”ž (๐”ฎ๐”ฒ๐”ข๐”ฏ๐”ข๐”ฉ๐”ฆ๐”ฐ) (๐”ฐ๐” ๐”ฏ๐”ฆ๐”ญ๐”ฑ๐”ฒ๐”ฏ๐”ž) 21:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  13. Oversteps bounds. TCs userpage doesn't exactly break CS, even if it's extremely indicative of a problem user. Otherwise per Summa. -- Techpriest (talk) 22:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  14. This is fucking dumb. Acegodfuckingdamnit 23:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  15. Cosign Aceโ€™s statement. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosoliniโ€™s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 00:39, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
  16. I like it. It shows what an idiot TC is without having to interact with him.-Flandres (talk) 02:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

  1. Not committed to any vote, but I think just a message on the user talk page discouraging them from this is good. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png ๐ŸŽ„LeftyGreenMario!๐ŸŽ„ 03:08, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Despite my strong oposition to this proposal, I should clarify one thing. I'm not endorsing TC's user page. Many users that get away with punishment at first see their acquittal as an endorsement of their behaivor from the community. That's not the case. Therefore, TC, I still suggest you remove the vitriolic comments on your user page, or at least refrain from update them every time you get a petty squabble on the Saloon or in any talk page. GeeJayK (talk) 03:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  • im actually more interested in the policy rather than a specific user's page. tc is not the first to be doing shit like this. AMassiveGay (talk) 07:42, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  • little bit disappointed this is a vote over this one user rather than the general policy tbh AMassiveGay (talk) 11:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I'll say this very plainly. I don't like TransChicken's user page. I don't think making other users angry in the Saloon Bar is anything to be proud of. But it's not breaking any current rules and it's true that no users are actually named on it. And I trust that most of the users alluded to on the page are sensible enough not to take the bait and not to indulge in pointless flaming drama. I would be fine with reviewing our community standards to be clearer about what is and isn't acceptable on a user page. But I don't think taking action against one specific user in this way is the right thing to do at this time. And I would never want to stop people from having user pages that basically say, "I hate RationalWiki", like Nutty Roux's does. Spud (talk) 13:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Our highly trained team of semantic experts has examined the userpage in question and determined that the statements therein are all but unintelligible to any but those intimately concerned parties who may be, in fact, reading meaning into statements that appear to be ambiguous at best, pointless in general, or simply fatuous. UncleKrampus (talk) 01:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
This whole thing is pathetic. Come on you wet ends - random comments on a user page which are relevant to almost no one starts a mod vote? Jesus - just donโ€™t fucking look at it. I checked the page and saw nothing that would start such a hand wringing offence. Stop. Acegodfuckingdamnit 07:39, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Is he puppeting? There was a user account called Gรถrlitzenberg on TC's account. I'm not very good at identifying trolling and he seemed normal from his contribs, but most importantly he went onto TC's talkpage first, but perhaps I'm wrong about the assertion. Could anyone much more professional on the subject say more about this? Senioritas (talk) 23:25, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
    That's Ken or someone posing as Ken. Doubt it's anything of note. -- Techpriest (talk) 09:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


User:Urmom[edit]

Persistent blanking, combined with name obvious vandal account. Please block or vandal bin immediatly.Andrew5 (talk) 16:42, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Currently blocked for 3.6 days. --Andrew5 (talk) 16:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

GR possibly back[edit]

Godless Raven may or may not be back. I don't care if he's back, but we did have a coop (#116) and others might. Actions? CorruptUser 21:15, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd say give them a benefit of a doubt for now. The username could be an honest coincidence. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 21:47, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
The account's name is User:.Raven. Personally, given their Wikipedia account (which contains nearly 500 edits), I'd say it's probably someone else. Then again, this account should be permabanned if and only if it is found to be Godless Raven's sockpuppet. Andrew5 (talk) 22:21, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
If it's GR we will know pretty quickly. I'd give them a chance-"raven" is hardly the rarest/most unique word on earth.-Flandres (talk) 22:37, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
[E.C.] I also spotted the name recently on a Wikipedia talk page where I added a mention of RationalWiki coverage. Seems more likely to be unrelated to GR than not. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 22:39, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
The Wikipedia user didn't edit any social democracy articles that I can see, which seems to have been GR's specialty. Thus, it seems to be unlikely that they're related. Plutocow (talk) 22:55, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Ahem, "speciality". GeeJayK (talk) 23:35, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
I ain't a Limey. Plutocow (talk) 21:41, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
To be honest I'm just mocking him, saying that Socdem isn't his speciality or specialty or whatever because, well... GeeJayK (talk) 01:03, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Panic stations everyone. A user with a similar name to a former user may or may not be said former user. Acegodfuckingdamnit 23:10, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Not even the first user to use the name "Raven" this year (see user:Revenant Raven). I'm not saying this guy ain't GR, just that we don't have any evidence so far. GeeJayK (talk) 23:35, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

MarioSuperstar777 must be a suspected sock by these standards. Stop freaking out over bird names. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png ๐ŸŽ„LeftyGreenMario!๐ŸŽ„ 20:33, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Why are you saying this, is it because your name is "LeftyGreenMario"? Besides, I too was wondering about that .raven and that other Revenant Raven, but at the same time while I'm suspicious I also believe that even Godless Raven isn't so smooth as to ought themselves outright, but who knows it could be one of those "5d chess play" the neocons keep blabbling about. Is there a way to verify the identity of those accounts? (Profile) - (Spoke!) 23:18, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
No to your last question, there's no way to be sure. And currently no reason to take any measure even if we had any, because nothing bad has popped up.
On Wikipedia they dig for IPs, etc., if they strongly enough suspect bad-faith socking, but here that's never done (deemed not worth it). And as suggested by my earlier comment, it could even be that .Raven was pointed to RW by a comment of mine on a Wikipedia talk page, for all we know. Anyway, it's also generally best to err on the side of not giving a lousy welcome. Like some others, I think this discussion looks a bit silly. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
I was mistaken for GR when I signed up, so I know what that's like. Plutocow (talk) 00:06, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
EC all would be revealed in due course if there anything to reveal and we wouldnt need to speculate about the identity of user based on nothing more than a bird name thats a pretty popular choice as usernames go. next to no posts or anything at all to even jump to conclusions with. there is no rush to take action, with the worst possible outcome of a banned fucknut sneaking back in is maybe a user or two mumbling to themselves 'oh is that prick back now?' as someone else beats em to the punch of block them again.
there is nothing suspicious about this new user needing to post them here, which just tells them we've got our eye on them and we will follow them round the store, our breath keeping the neck warm as go round, to make sure they dont steal nothing. welcome to rationalwiki new user, please come again.
hypervigilance/paranoia is not required, we can always afford to assume good faith with new users, until they start posting stuff that might raise suspicions. to my knowledge banned user in question has never made any attempt to sneak back in at all since their banning (they might need a large slice of humble pie before they would even try, i reckon) so particularly ridiculous to be sounding alarms.and how would we spot them if they did try a return exactly? they were banned for not playing well others, progressively getting worse as time went on. we'd need actual interactions of butting heads with other users, and that would need to escalate before that would reveal anything useful.
im not at all concerned about the id of any new user, or any suspicions people might have of them. keep them to yourselves until there is at least something to be suspicious off AMassiveGay (talk) 01:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
This is like the Machina ATIM - it gets pointless. Or the TC one. Maybe we should...focus on something else? A thread to ban ADefenceOfChristianity is below.Andrew5 (talk) 01:09, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=RationalWiki_talk:All_things_in_moderation/Archive44&oldid=2370069"