Information icon.svg Results for the 2023 RationalWiki Moderator Election have now been posted. Thank you for participating in this election, and congratulations to the winners!

RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation/Archive52

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 11 March 2022. Please do not make edits to this page.

Libel case aganist LeftyGreenMario.[edit]

I want LeftyGreenMario to:

  • Stop calling me a transphobe concern troll.
  • Get me out of the vandalbin due to vandal bin should only be used aganist vandals and to get rid of someone free speech.
  • Allow me to return back into the discussion at Talk:Sex and gender in sport Epic Games (talk) 01:31, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
@Epic Games The protection only lasts for 53 minutes, so please wait it out. I do agree that she shouldn't be calling you a transphobic concern troll, although bloating I can see the frustration. And although I do agree you shouldn't be in the vandal ban, I do want to make a note that it isn't just used for vandals, but anyone who needs their edit rate slowed. --Andrew5 (talk) 01:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
That discussion has ran in circles and went nowhere with you involved (and without you, people were actually having a discussion, look at the length of the thread) and you were told multiple times to take a hike, including me, a moderator, maybe two moderators as Bongolian didn't really receive you exactly warmly. You didn't get the message, so here we are. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png ๐ŸŽ„LeftyGreenMario!๐ŸŽ„(Mod) 01:46, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Also this isn't the first time Epic Games acted super combative after practically grinding on people's patience with their willful obtusesness[1] and failure to adhere to advice when told how to improve interaction with people. There has been no observed improvement since then. It should be very evident they're arguing in bad faith.[2] --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png ๐ŸŽ„LeftyGreenMario!๐ŸŽ„(Mod) 01:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
People keeps asking the same points over and over again which I have already refuted
* There is no mention of trans people in the article. FALSE
* The paper is suspect! I have already stated that the experts have found no fault with the paper. Those that believe that there is suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect.
* Placing in the paper will make people believe that scientific community believe that trans women have advantage Include all the latest papers in the mainspace article and to allow the reader to understand that this topic is still very controversial! The current mainspace article gives the false impression that the scientific community believes that transwomen have no advantage over normal women!
I am sick and tired of repeating myself. I am attempted to engage in good faith and listen to what other editors are saying. The trouble is no-one is listening to me. The idea that I am discussing in bad faith is ridiculous. Epic Games (talk) 02:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
LOL, "engage in good faith" in the same page as "Libel case aganist LeftyGreenMario". Get the fuck out of here, troll. You will deserve the fate you get. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 14:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Topic ban Epic Games from gender-related articles[edit]

This vote has been closed. Please do not add, remove or change votes.
The result of this vote was: Passes with 14-7, Epic Games is topic banned from all gender-related articles PoorlyDrawnRockford.jpeg Rockford the Roe boop my snootpraise Oscar Wilde 15:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)


  1. Since they clearly have not been acting in good faith, I propose this as a solution to the issue. Plutocow (talk) 01:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
  2. Scream!! (talk) 01:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
  3. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png ๐ŸŽ„LeftyGreenMario!๐ŸŽ„(Mod) 01:46, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
  4. Abuse of the term 'libel': 1) Epic Games is not a confirmable real person. 2) Arguably true. Bongolian (talk) 01:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
  5. I've been avoiding this because "Trans issues" and "anything related to any sport that has ever existed" are not spheres I excel at...but I have followed the discussion pretty much the whole time so I'm willing to rule on it now that it is at my doorstep. EG is very obviously acting in bad faith here so a topic ban would be helpful.-Flandres (talk) 01:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
    Bullshit. I have been engaging with others but I have to repeat myself over and over again because people repeat the same objections over and over again which I have already refuted. Epic Games (talk) 02:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
  6. I was really hoping it wouldn't come down to this, and this comes with regret with me. But the talk page discussion is nearly seventy kilobytes of drama, with no progress being done. It's getting unproductive. I hope this can be repealed in a few months. --Andrew5 (talk) 01:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
  7. Hopefully this is an open and shut case ShabiDOO 01:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
  8. You should really cool it with that 'libel' terminology. It really doesn't do your case any good at all. The big thread in question makes it obvious that you are not contributing in good faith. โ€”cosmikdebris talk stalk 03:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
    Sorry would you like it if someone calls you names. Would you like being called a transphobe, rapist, pedo or other malicious things? It annoys me having to constantly prove to others that I am not a transphobe. Epic Games (talk) 03:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
  9. They used 'normal women' as opposed to 'trans women' again on this page. They seem to be ineducable. Maybe they'll cool off and wise up after a while, but personally I doubt it. Queexchthonic murmurings 11:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
  10. Spud (talk) 13:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
  11. Can't wait for the help, help, I'm being repressed response. -- Techpriest (talk) 10:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  12. PoorlyDrawnRockford.jpeg Rockford the Roe boop my snootpraise Oscar Wilde 13:34, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  13. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 14:09, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  14. I tend to get way too caught up in drama when it occurs so I stay out of it, but I've been reading all of it for a while. I respect the discipline to not have done this already, but this is getting tiring and taking so much attention. With this hopefully we can just move on. armed_roomba(she/her)What am I doing wrong this time? 04:46, 9 February 2022 (UTC)


  1. No need, this has mostly remained on the talkpage, as per the guidelines. โ˜ญComrade GCโ˜ญMinistry of Praise 02:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
    No, they had little stints at Saloon Bar[3] and your talk page too.[4] --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png ๐ŸŽ„LeftyGreenMario!๐ŸŽ„(Mod) 02:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
    And? Those were related discussions, not the current subject of contention. The current subject of contention has remained on the relevant talkpage. I see no need to topic ban this user at the current time. Everyone else is of course free to disagree, as is their right. โ˜ญComrade GCโ˜ญMinistry of Praise 02:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
    I can sympothize with GC on this one, I just think that it's the best for everyone now and he can appeal in a few months and hopefully learn. --Andrew5 (talk) 02:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
  2. Fuck unnecessary topic bans. Ushit the dipshit (I shit, Ushit...) 02:20, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
  3. Per GC, and per my take on EG as expressed on the talk page of the relevant article. ๐’ฎ๐‘’๐“‡๐‘’๐“ƒ๐‘’ talk 03:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
  4. Epic Games didn't edit war or anything like this. Fruitless talk pages discussions might be tiresome, but I don't think they are enough reason for topic bans. GeeJayK (talk) 12:43, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
    Personally I'm more reacting to Epic Games starting a bullshit "libel" ATIM than anything else. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 14:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
    It was Epic Games's second attempt. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png ๐ŸŽ„LeftyGreenMario!๐ŸŽ„(Mod) 06:04, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
    When was the first? --Andrew5 (talk) 01:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  5. โ€” ๐—ฆ๐—พ๐—ฟ๐˜-๐Ÿญ talk stalk 13:54, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  6. This is jumping the gun. RW would benefit more from topic banning an editor whose posts on several topics are nearly always disruptive on par with Nobs. Nutty Roux (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  7. Iโ€™ll confess from the outset that I have no interest in reading the mess on that talk page. I have had a glance though, and a glance shall suffice. Moderators should follow an analogue of the principle of least action. Allow this editor their talk-page soapbox but, in this particular case, ignore them. If they try to edit main space it can be easily supervised by any sysop. Getting drawn into this mess is embarrassing. LeucippusSalva veritate 22:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


  • The only reason people are voting aganist me is because you all think I am a transphobe and a concern troll which is not true! Honestly LGM can go screw himself/herself what ever the correct pronoun is! Epic Games (talk) 03:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
    Your powers of persuasion are truly exceptional. ๐’ฎ๐‘’๐“‡๐‘’๐“ƒ๐‘’ talk 03:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
    "I'm not a transphobe", proceeds to mock pronouns. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png ๐ŸŽ„LeftyGreenMario!๐ŸŽ„(Mod) 07:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
    LGM is cis (iirc) lmao. PoorlyDrawnRockford.jpeg Rockford the Roe boop my snootpraise Oscar Wilde 14:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  • A suggestion: impose topic ban, Epic Games can appeal by demonstrating a firm grasp on the very basics of gender. If they can't get this basic thing correct why should any of you be convinced they can tackle any related subject on gender without wasting people's time explaining? So, topic ban is appropriate. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png ๐ŸŽ„LeftyGreenMario!๐ŸŽ„(Mod) 08:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Minimum time is now over. Could a mod/tech close this case? Monet Ye 12:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)


  1. I have been the only one arguing in good faith. I wish other editors would listen to me rather than repeat themselves. Epic Games (talk) 02:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
    No matter what your edit count is (idk if it's above 75), you still need to be here for 3 months, so March 28. --Andrew5 (talk) 02:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
    *February 28. His account was created on December 28. Monet Ye 09:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
    Three months after 28/12 is 28/3. (doh)Queexchthonic murmurings 11:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
    Iโ€™m confused? --Andrew5 mobile (talk) 11:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, you were right, on 28/3 he's eligible to vote. My bad. Monet Ye 12:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
    Whether or not there's a rule for it, it's more than distasteful to deny a vote on a technicality like this to the person against whom sanctions are being pressed. This person should have the same say as anyone else in his fate. You are better people than this. Nutty Roux (talk) 13:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
    Sorry, this is nonsense. It makes more sense to argue that people shouldn't be able to sit in judgement over themselves in any circumstances. Queexchthonic murmurings 14:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
    Except that's literally only the case on this site if someone gets weeded out by this very technicality, which was created to prevent brigading and new user disruption of coops, not disenfranchise someone. Nutty Roux (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
    This is not a technicality. It is an entirely sensible rule for many reasons. Three months is a short time frame to allow users to vote on site policy and sanction. Epic games can either grow up (and make this vote unnecessary) or wait a couple months and vote against next time the community has had it with their troublemaking. The site is entirely disinterested in what a relatively new user thinks about the way the we react unfavourably to their shenanigans and biggotry ShabiDOO 15:54, 8 February 2022 (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”˜ Plus, Epic Games is free to defend themselves here. They canโ€™t vote of course, but they can try to make arguments. And it somewhat worked, the vote is 13-7. Although that is enough to tban, just not enough to normal ban. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 23:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Andrew's talk page[edit]

More than 70 edits in a few hours. I dunno about you guys, but I actually OD'd on those discussions and people bumping his talk page all the time even though heโ€™s blocked rn. While I disagree with most of his opinions I sincerely feel like some people are exploiting his naivety for entertainment and are deep-covered harassing him.I know, people are just giving him what heโ€™s asking to, but I donโ€™t think this is the moral thing to do with a gullible, underage user. Iโ€™d appreciate if a moderator could shut down the discussion. GeeJayK (talk) 22:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, he was banned but his 'mobile' account was not. He's in there still. Queexchthonic murmurings 22:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
IMHO that was a bullshit blanket block. Andrew hasn't been formally topic banned from anything yet. Start that first. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 23:09, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
I only started because he spouted an opinion on solitary confinement that I found very morally objectionable, too tasteless to simply go without a comment, but it was a bit off topic and didn't want to clutter Saloon Bar, so I figure that discussion should take place on talk page. It's the same deal with USHA's comment on electric chair executions, another comment I found ethically questionable and also went to the talk page. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png ๐ŸŽ„LeftyGreenMario!๐ŸŽ„(Mod) 06:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Given that I am no longer blocked tho, can it at least take place somewhere else? Andrew5 mobile (talk) 11:33, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
I think that Andrew's talk page is far and away the best place for such Andrew-centric debates. They fill up the SB with nonsense far to easily. If they are confined to his talk page only those who actually feel the need to interact get to read them, or even know they exist.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Good post! Scream!! (talk) 19:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
If thatโ€™s the case, then can it at least be a subpage of my talk page (something like User talk:Andrew5/Political debates) so I donโ€™t get a notification every time someone replies? --Andrew5 mobile (talk) 19:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Andrew5 (again)[edit]

By his own admission he's trying to be the center of attention, creating the more and more topics on weather and gerrymandering as well as posting silly opinions even though people have already called him out. In other words, he's intentionally trying to be disruptive. I'd like to propose a topic ban on him on weather and gerrymandering on the Saloon Bar. Maybe on politics in general. GeeJayK (talk) 00:36, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Not before time, although then he'll just be wikilawyering all over the place. Scream!! (talk) 00:39, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
This wasnโ€™t wikilawyering. Then again, I can only see how posting about gerrymandering upsets people, how does a weather post upset people? That one thread was because people dinged me out for that. --Andrew5 mobile (talk) 01:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
It is not the subjects but the frequency that annoys. These are topics that almost never start conversations. Bongolian (talk) 01:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
They do whenever they are particuarly tragic (50+ deaths for US). Maybe that could set a minimum? I mean we have articles for 2 hurricanes. --Andrew5 (talk) 01:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
(EC) @Andrew5 He's not saying that your weather/gerrymandering posts were wikilawyering. He's saying that if you're topic banned, you'll just end up wikilawyering, something you have a reputation for. Weather posts annoy because (1) they're frequent, (2) nobody cares, and (3) this has been communicated to you multiple times by multiple users, and you have made no clear change in attitude or behavior. And that's key: it does annoy people, and you've been told it's annoying, and you keep doing it. ๐’ฎ๐‘’๐“‡๐‘’๐“ƒ๐‘’ talk 01:30, 17 February 2022 (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”˜ Andrew, the problem is the amount of threads on the same subject. If there was only, say, one thread per week, I doubt we would have this conversation right now. The Saloon is not like Reddit or Facebook, it's a slow board and you are spamming/flooding it. GeeJayK (talk) 01:32, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

This, basically. โ˜ญComrade GCโ˜ญMinistry of Praise 01:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
It really is only one weather thread a week. A lot of people thought California had snow during the storm, which actually could be interpreted as on mission as the storm brought LA's first rain in a month as a result of Climate change. As far as politics go, I actually do have moderate beliefs sometimes. For instance, I support the Kansas lawsuit to remove the map. But it was trollcollapsed regardless by GC. --Andrew5 (talk) 02:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
A single weather event is not climate. Your not understanding that is part of the problem. Bongolian (talk) 06:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
I have a different suggestion. Any post about weather, politics or Gerrymandering started by Andrew should be moved to his talk page. He can post whatever he wants and anyone who actually wants to interact on the subject can go there.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:40, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
As I said in the ATIM above, I would ideally want this to be a subpage of my talk page if we do this. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 11:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

The trolling quality[edit]

I think I understand what kind of larger game Andrew5 is playing, one which has been sucking up lots of time and energy in the long term. Now that "trolling" has been somewhat zoomed in on (@GrammarCommie), but the back-and-forth exchange has swiftly ran past the crux of the matter towards further distraction, I think it's good to take the opportunity to look at the central thing before it's forgotten. And I think it's really simple, almost everyone has simply missed that Andrew5 simply doesn't care, and in thinking that he does, they keep engaging, and they keep labeling his mis-responses as things far more deliberate and complex than they actually are (for example, all the talk about his "wikicop" behavior in the past).

For example, in the current Saloon Bar discussion, you have three responses from Andrew5 where he explains himself through minimum-effort web searches. The first web link he posted was clearly wrong, it contained an assignment question rather than an answer to support his position. But I think he did not try to support his position to himself at all. He does not play that game, which others try to play in discussions. Instead, he plays a related but fundamentally simpler game of merely pseudo-advancing and pseudo-supporting things. Possibly he does not understand what others try to do and care about, I don't know, but I think there's people like that and that others are thrown off when they falsely assume that there's any engagement in complex reasoning. As in, Andrew5 simply posts something and if it's accepted, he's done -- success -- and if not, he simply posts something else from a low-effort search, or a quick associative-reasoning response cooked up faster than others think about Andrew5's responses, and if that doesn't work either, then he dos it again, and whenever his response is finally accepted -- it's all a success, in relation to what he's actually doing and cares about (which does not actually include analyzing things).

But why does he do it? Does he want to trigger others, like trolls so often do? I don't think so, I think he is simply totally indifferent to that, too. I think he simply wants what for him is entertaining low-effort engagement with others, without a care in the world, while not really being touched either way by the responses of others. Give him room and he'll simply fill it with his activity. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 13:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I also don't think that he is a classic "Troll". He is in that he likes attention: but he isn't in that he don't just post for that reason. The problem is that his beliefs are extremally superficial and not arrived at through some process of critical reasoning. He thinks, as you suggest, that any response is good as long as it restates to/supports his position. He seems to have difficulty with the idea that others might not share his shallow opinions and seems to feel that simply restating them or - often - stating something tangentially associated with the point in question will silence or convince his critics.
Those used to the idea that you need to hold and defend a consistent reasoned position and actually respond logically to counter arguments are frustrated by this.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Iโ€™m not so sure heโ€™s not a troll. Some of his sources (the initial ones) have seemed pretty obscure, not the ones youโ€™d get by grabbing stuff off the first page of Google results. Obscure sources take more effort to find, not less. In any case, heโ€™s clearly not interested in developing his own views, heโ€™s apparently not interested in actually persuading anybody else (why so little effort, if so?), and his insensitivity to the feedback of others (on various things) constitutes a form of disrespect. Perhaps itโ€™s true he doesnโ€™t really care at all, but all that means is that heโ€™s closer to a spambot than a troll. ๐’ฎ๐‘’๐“‡๐‘’๐“ƒ๐‘’ talk 15:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Curious you should say that. At one point I actually wondered if he was a sophisticated spambot. Something which sort of responds to the the question at hand but with a comment designed to elicit more responses. But now it's obvious that he's not one.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:26, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
How would I be a spambot? I mean, I do have a 96 in a basic coding class. --Andrew5 (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
The guy's more of a spambot than troll, and topic banning his favorite subjects isn't going to solve a more fundamental issue. He'll still find a way to be tedious. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png ๐ŸŽ„LeftyGreenMario!๐ŸŽ„(Mod) 15:59, 17 February 2022 (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 am definitely agreeing with users that Andrew is not a classic troll. Both apoof and bob put it all well. I have also seen a MASSIVE improvement from his absolutely insufferable, exasperating god-awful gobshittery on uncyclopedia until he was permabanned. His behaviour here in comparison seems angelic, and credit is due for a notable improvement. Having said that, the ability to listen to others and change only seems to happen after a violent smack in the head (serious sanctions) or being booted from yet another website. As you can tell, politely asking him to tone down on annoying pointless behaviour doesn't work, even if it happens dozens of times. No amount of arguments from no amount of users over no amount of time seems to get through to him. Instead of reasoning (as he should) that posting very once in a while would allow him to actually continue, he ignores everyone (except a passer-by who conveniently agrees with him) and just does what he wants, even though he knows it might lead to a ban. That means either he doesn't really care about what he is doing and will do it until he is eventually topic-banned, or has some sort of condition which makes it difficult to control compulsive behaviour or listen to others. In either case, and from his history on other sites, and despite his improvement, I can promise you that nothing short of placing clear limits with consequences will ever lead to change. ShabiDOO 17:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

From my personal observation, there is no way to absolutely differentiate an anonymous human from a bot based on purely textual interfaces on the internet. Andrew5 is oblivious to interaction (Paraphrasing, A: My political views are like Nixon's but less crimey. B: Nixon's criming was a feature not a bug. He was also a raging antisemite. A: I'm Jewish myself. B: Evidence of Nixon's antisemitism laid out. A: Oh wow. โ€ฆ A: Nixon was a centrist.) or even lack of interaction. A smaller box for him to muck around in would be better: confining gerrymandering, weather and any other repetitive posts to his talk page or his talk subpages would go a long way towards this. Bongolian (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure Andrew could pass a Turing test. He clearly is capable of modifying his behavior. It has been suggested that topic bans could reduce his disruptive influence and it would probably work until he found some other equally mind-numbing topics to exploit. Perhaps he can be trained to be less annoying by permitting administrators to apply short blocks when he starts to get irritating. He hasn't really annoyed me all that much, but I usually pass over his comments without reading or giving them too much thought. Really, it's not that complicated. Just block him with impunity and let others unblock if they want to do so. People here are so fastidious about blocking rules. Does anyone think they would be cooped for repeatedly blocking Andrew ? I doubt I would block him myself because I just don't read his posts all that much.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Andrew5 has been sysoprevoked, so there's really nothing stopping people from giving hims short-term blocks. The position we're in is either put Andrew5 in a smaller box (his own talk page), or subject him to block and/or revert. Bongolian (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
I think we should just topic ban him from politics (note I did not just say gerrymandering) and weather, then be done with it. He doesn't really contribute anything on these topics, and the chances of him changing his behavior are...not worth betting on. I'm just throwing in my two cents, or perhaps more accurately stating the simple solution.-Flandres (talk) 20:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
That's fine, but then we have to expect him to abide by the rule. It all comes down to blocking or reverting anyway. We can do both I suppose. Ariel31459 (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
That's what I meant. It would give us, if you will, "a mandate" to block/revert. I suppose I am more skeptical about the "would anyone be cooped" claim you made.-Flandres (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
It is crystal-clear that the stupidity of my topic-ban has been exceeded in magnitudes higher by this incessant flailing tirade against Andrew5. The apparent intent of you RationalWiki sysops to mimic the intolerance of Karajou almost amazes me. Ushit the dipshit (I shit, Ushit...) 03:17, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm... gonna have to agree with Ushit here. The talk about Andrew is getting to the point where any "trolling" he's doing is outweighed by the endless deliberation about his motives, and also a weird need to prove everything he does wrong. Just... chill. If he is a troll, all this talk about him is definetly going to make him want to troll more. armed_roomba(she/her)What am I doing wrong this time? 06:01, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Why? USHA's comment is nothing more than blind insult bordering on ad hominem. As for Andrew, yes, this is indeed far too much deliberation for a troll. And, Andrew is a troll. He can be as earnest as possible and still be a troll. โ˜ญComrade GCโ˜ญMinistry of Praise 18:14, 18 February 2022 (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”˜:So I lurk far more than I post, and don't really participate in Wikis, but I do read almost everything in the Saloon. Apoof and Shabi seem to have it IMO. This feels (to me) like an honest and earnest intent to engage and participate that is running headfirst into inability and fixation. Topic bans (to me) seem to be more reserved for the intentionally malicious, dishonest, and/or uncivil. There are other users who have pointless, annoying posts, that don't get this kind of discussion because the issue (as has been endlessly pointed out) is the frequency. Short-term blocks seem to both be in policy for this type of behavior and directly address the central issue. Just my stupid 2 cents.Buck (talk) 08:35, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Soo... Should there be a vote on topic ban(Saloon bar), a block, or only a slap on the wrist? Monet Ye 10:12, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
There's currently a short (3.6 day) block, and people seem fine with it staying in effect. I don't think topic bans would really solve the problem, but people who really want one could start a vote.
Actually, I think Buck has a good point, and Shabidoo mentioned how Andrew5 lacks inner control which means some outer is needed. Maybe in the future, if people could basically agree on warning a few times first when Andrew5's activity begins to get "spammy" (warn early so as to give chance for reflection), and then simply hand out a new 3.6 day block after a short series of warnings have been unheeded, that would basically solve it. (If something exceptionally bad is posted, that could warrant a more immediate block, of course.) As long as people won't step on one another's toes, e.g. some blocking too much, others lifting blocks... If there's a rough consensus, per Bongolian that kind of approach could be used without a vote. With prompt, regular action, I don't think it would be much of a pain to deal with, rather it is the delay in acting which has inflated it all over a long time. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Okay, buck convinced me. We can just stick with blocks, no official topic ban required.-Flandres (talk) 18:06, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
He did not convince me. Simply suggesting that people apply arbitrary blocks whenever they get bored/fed up with Andrew does not seem like a very well-controlled or considered response.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
He's becoming a headache. I feel like I should have a talk with him... Corm (yak) 21:00, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
[EC] I hope for something other, something in-between and not really the same as either of the following: 1) Only following written rules saying exactly what to do in each situation. 2) Arbitrary actions.
I think the tendency to either reach for #1 (e.g. voting on banning specific easy-to-list things), or do nothing, when faced with drama, isn't very good, because these problems can't all be legislated away in a good precise way, because the problems to solve don't have that rigid a shape. And left unsolved, tensions can increase until more pointless drama results.
Maybe an aversion to everything "arbitrary", or seeing only #1 and #2 as options (discounting the option of arriving at some less formal consensus on a more fluid way to act), comes from all the drama and "wars" between sysops in the past, but right now things seem pretty reasonable on the whole, so I think it can work. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 21:08, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
I just gave up engaging with him for the most part. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png ๐ŸŽ„LeftyGreenMario!๐ŸŽ„(Mod) 21:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
That was my decision too. In classic Don't Feed the Troll manner. If everyone came to the same occlusion there would be less of a problem.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
... and mine. Scream!! (talk) 13:58, 19 February 2022 (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”˜ So, is there going to be a vote? Spud (talk) 14:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Not sure. If the result is RW just ignoring me and imposing short blocks, my guess is no. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 14:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
A vote could could be easily avoided Andrew if you'd just say right now: message heard, I will make a serious (not minor or short lived) effort to listen to what multiple users say when I do things that bother them and learn to compromise when interacting with others. ShabiDOO 16:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Well, since I can finally defend myself, I guess here it goes.
Ever since my sysop tools were revoked in early June 2021, that really takes a lot of the fun out of RationalWiki. I doubt anytime before my Uncyclopedia ban is lifted will I get them back, or in that timeframe. So, then I kind of began to seclude myself only to RW:AFD. Problem? I got blocked for pi days in mid July 2021. In late August, I began to frequently edit at the Saloon. Then, I did a lot of rating articles in October and after. I briefly actually did massive referencing efforts around the year change, helping to bring Cold War to silver level status, bringing President of the United States to bronze, nearly bringing 2018 midterm elections to bronze (and probably will shortly), and resolving the issues on my own article, 2014 midterm elections. However, it becomes bleak. You try to do it for a while, and evantually it gets dreadful and dreary.
So now that Iโ€™m spending more time at the bar, it allows for more political arguments. In theory, this isnโ€™t a problem, but it became one mainly because of the issue before of me hijacking threads, mainly because it becomes a battlefield of opposing viewpoints. As the one opposing the main POV, I assume the onus is on me? Like, for instance, itโ€™s one thing to say โ€œplease reduce your weather postsโ€, and I have slightly, but they have also become battlegrounds more. But its another thing to tell me to stop being a centrist. And I am a centrist, but just one that engages in critical thinking and deductive logic reasoning in my posts.
So, in essence, itโ€™s these provoking posts that are the problem. For instance, saying the VRA is discriminating white people is probably a stupid thing to say in retrospect. I still donโ€™t understand why these harsh criminal penalties are so bad, and there have been numerous discussions, but something like the VRA is bad is something I shouldnโ€™t say if I am clearly this unable to persuade people.Andrew5 mobile (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
This is the other part of the problem - people are collapsing literally every thread from me that they donโ€™t like, and effectively shunning me. Itโ€™s like every single time I try something new I get collapsed. Itโ€™s like what do you want me to post? Andrew5 mobile (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Okay so this block has made no difference. Unless someone wants a vote I propose blocks of increasing length and then a vote on topic bans once people get sick of blocking Andrew. ShabiDOO 17:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Half of mine is confused what the block was about. All I got in the entry was โ€œNow Iโ€™m actually pissed, forgot to take talk page awayโ€. The second part signifies people are sick of debating with me. Hereโ€™s the thing though - people want me to stop posting about politics. But hereโ€™s the issue, everything is politicized. There is no news that isnโ€™t politics, so effectively, a topic ban on gerrymandering and politics is a saloon bar ban, but more because now I canโ€™t edit political articles. Iโ€™d post about the recent Storm Eunice, which caused 17 deaths, but it would probably make people upset. But hereโ€™s the thing, that seems to happen no matter what I post. Youโ€™re not telling me what you want. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm not as ticked as some (possibly because many conversations became so out of control I just ignored them), but my observations would be:
A) You don't really have a great critical analysis filter at this time, which leads to inane random observations that aren't really that meaningful on its own (eg the recent collapsed discussion). And you are rather obstinate, which doesn't help. Especially when inane becomes appallingly ignorant. (I mean, I didn't follow everything. Were you really actually defending Jim Crow laws? That's not "provoking", that's marching your way beyond the alt-right into Metapedia / Daily Stormer territory, whether you know it or not.)
B) Rationalwiki is primarily a skeptic site that focuses on countering woo, authoritarianism, and fundamentalism. A little off-topic is okay, but we are not a weather community. Storms are primarily on topic if, say, a fundie preacher blames a weather event on !!!THE HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA!!! or something along those lines. Daily weather reports are off topic. Too much off topic becomes tiring. There are weather communities out there where weather can be discussed. Why are you doing this here?
C) If I recall, GC got pissed and blocked you when you spammed a shit-ton of personal Youtube links to the bar. That's a serious no-no. Spammers get blocked here. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Andrew5 is kidding himself that he has been debating anyone here. He has a generalized failure to understand others, either willful or guileless. Bongolian (talk) 19:07, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thank you for the response, Pan. I can see daily weather reports being boring, although we recently had Storm Eunice and the recent catastrophic flooding in Brazil. 2022 has not been a kind weather year at all. Now, was I defending Jim Crow laws? No, I oppose segregation. why do I oppose the VRA? Well, because it offers protections for *minoroties only*, which means it doesnโ€™t offer equal protection. Theoretically when America becomes majority minority sometime in the 2040s, they can then suppress whites. The VRA should be scrapped and a new law offering *equal* protection to *all* races in its place. What you have to understand about the VRA though was that it was passed with a democratic majority in Congress so large, it never got larger. The house had 295 democratic seats, even after 1976 it was only 292. It was the last true senate supermajority, as since, in 1976, the democrats only had 61 seats. But when the VRA was passed they had 68. As such, it was meant to be what is now a progressive bill, which would obviously fail. BUT Democrats had rode massive blue waves in 1958 (going from barely a majority to nearly a supermajority), 1962 (in the senate), and obviously 1964. And you could see some fallout when republicans gain 3 senate seats and 47 house seats in 1966, which nonetheless democrats maintained large majorities in both. In theory, the VRA works, but in practice it doesnโ€™t. Anywayโ€ฆ.I really couldnโ€™t find too many weather communities, youโ€™d be surprised. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 19:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Also, Iโ€™m noticing IPs are collapsing half the threads, and there is likely IP hopping. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 19:23, 21 February 2022 (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 mean if anyone wants a clear example of Andrew not listening or compromising, this is a prime example. I literally told Andrew what most of us want: to just say something like: "message heard, I will make a serious (not minor or short lived) effort to listen to what multiple users say when I do things that bother them and learn to compromise when interacting with others" and this is simply ignored, with an entirely irrelevant babbling response followed later by "tell me what you want". I just did, and you ignored it and then acted as though I hadn't event said anything. A couple users here complained about your politics but most of us have not. Your political views are not at issue but you spamming the saloon with repetitive gibberish or repeating the same bad political argument ad nauseum and ignoring users when they tell you what is frustrating them and responding with non-sequiturs and doing whatever shit you like. Fine Andrew, so be it, we will just continue blocking you and eventually topic banning you and eventually expelling you if nothing changes. Up to you. There is no reason you cannot be a tollerable member of the site. ShabiDOO 20:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I found one thing to post about that wasnโ€™t politics or weather (which is generally rare), letโ€™s see how it pans out. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 20:51, 21 February 2022 (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”˜OK, this troll collapse business in the saloon bar is getting pretty fucking ridiculous. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

its not a crime to be dumb AMassiveGay (talk) 21:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Good post! Andrew5 mobile (talk) 21:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Eh, I'm not going to un-collapse. Off-topic (in spite of being warned about being off-topic) and dumb (inquiries suggest that the last time the US topped the Winter Olympics medal chart was in 1932). Typical, in other words. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Well the only on topic stuff is political news, which is always collapsed anyway. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 21:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Don't let the troll collapse bother you lol your ability to react to things and offer your smartness is still there. It's just less time dragging across the screen or the mouse wheel. I prefer if my discarded finger skin cells and oils are for a bit more worthwhile causes. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png ๐ŸŽ„LeftyGreenMario!๐ŸŽ„(Mod) 00:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
โ€ฆok. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 00:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
im uncomfortable with the whole 'off topic' thing. the whole point of the saloon is for 'off topic' AMassiveGay (talk) 15:36, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Good post! Andrew5 mobile (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
To me it's a judgement call, obviously, between "off topic" and "SPAM!", decided by the mob. We aren't Instagram, for instance, and I'm sure if someone posted a picture of every single meal they ate to the Bar every single day (and/or all the inane shit Instagram "influencers" do), people would get annoyed and they'd probably be eventually blocked if they didn't stop. If Andrew made an occasional thing about the weather or other inane shit, that would be one thing. Funny, with the Olympics topic, you could come up with things of more relevance to this site. Like how fucking corrupt the IoC is, who these days seem to chase any authoritarian they can that is willing to lavish the committee members with bribes "common sense" fancy gifts and build the white elephant fancy-pants stadiums for them. Instead, it's something dumb about how the US didn't win the most medals (which the US normally doesn't for the Winter Olympics, anyways). Yawn. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 16:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Can the little bootlicker just be banned and get it over with?[edit]

Now he's simping for the USSR. I'm quarantined right now so I've had time to look over all the shit on his talk page and it seems like the only consistent position he holds is that authoritarianism is preferable to anything else. Inmate XIII (talk) 18:48, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Really? This sounds like a personal issue. I understand a bar ban, however there have been constructive edits to mainspace so a site ban doesnโ€™t work. The issue is a lot of people donโ€™t โ€œwant to see it.โ€ However, RationalWiki even says it Welcomes people from any POV. Autharotanism is necessary to prevent law and order, and I am firmly for any measure that reduces crime. That is where my otherwise centrist views do delve into right wing territory. All my other views are moderate. --Andrew5 (talk) 20:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Unblock him already[edit]

Seriously. The vindictiveness of RationalWiki circlejerks who collectively antagonize, assail, and block me in sprees of vengeance tirades nowhere nearly parallels the attempt to one-up Ken/Karajou levels of vain masochist bullshit at the next magnitude as seen in the pursued purging of Andrew5. Ushit the dipshit (I shit, Ushit...) 00:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Just go to our website. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png ๐ŸŽ„LeftyGreenMario!๐ŸŽ„(Mod) 00:09, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Epic Games[edit]

It's evident the user hasn't taken well to sanctions being imposed, and they have violated their topic ban, but the user has taken a notch further through very inappropriate comments and a personal attack (which is a common expression of bigotry toward asexual people).[5] I reverted the comment and placed a 3.6 block but I hope we agree this behavior is squarely against Community Standards. You may try to unblock this user for a chance to respond but they should not be editing the respective talk page. This is favored over a protection for now but protection may also be applied if you see fit. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png ๐ŸŽ„LeftyGreenMario!๐ŸŽ„(Mod) 06:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree that that behavior was unacceptable. Bongolian (talk) 07:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
That's a horrible personal attack. Completely unacceptable. I think that alone deserves a permaban. Spud (talk) 11:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
agree. they dont even have the excuse of 'heat of the moment' since plenty of time has passed for any indignation at the topic ban to pass AMassiveGay (talk) 12:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
I donโ€™t think it deserves a permaban, but thatโ€™s just because Iโ€™m generally against permabans. Agree that that behavior needs a sanction. --Andrew5 mobile (talk) 14:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Maybe we do civility parole? Andrew5 mobile (talk) 14:21, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
I guess I can start a vote? PoorlyDrawnRockford.jpeg Rockford the Roe boop my snootpraise Oscar Wilde 14:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
shouldnt this take place in the coop? and i really dont like this format of multiple votes for multiple options AMassiveGay (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
there has barely been anytime for discussion either AMassiveGay (talk) 15:25, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
I agree that voting was premature. My intent was to call to a problem first and see community consensus but I probably should've went straight to coop. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png ๐ŸŽ„LeftyGreenMario!๐ŸŽ„(Mod) 20:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Comunity standards states: "Penalty votes in the Chicken coop or at All things in moderation started within 24 hours of filing a complaint will be considered invalid". For the record I would be in favour of a significant sanction.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
so this is all invalid then. not least that epic has not had a chance defend themselves. (i voted to permaban btw, i'm not wikilawyering)AMassiveGay (talk) 21:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes. According to our community Standards all this is invalid.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Here is my idea. Archive this, immediately re-open the thread (saying โ€œlink to past discussion, was invalid so here we are), actually wait 24 hours or archive and file a coop.--Andrew5 mobile (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
That being said, the CS is just โ€œguidelines we as a community try to live up toโ€, and given how Ken was permabanned with only 58% support, there can be exceptions. With the input I think it could stay. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 22:49, 22 February 2022 (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 assume civility parole needs just a majority to pass, but 2/3 for bans? --Andrew5 mobile (talk) 20:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh stop being such a crybaby, LeftyGreenMario. All of what you have done is be an asshole to me since the very beginning I created my account. The only thing you do is accuse me of vague points of "transphobe" and "concern troll". You just are just a troll, LGM, just admit it. Epic Games (talk) 02:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
@Epic Games All of this could have been avoided if you just fucking worked with others and didn't act like a spoiled 12 year old in almost every post you've made. โ˜ญComrade GCโ˜ญMinistry of Praise 02:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
@Epic Games, youโ€™re treading on thin ice, not only because a lot of people want you permabanned (at this rate, you will be banned for pi weeks, but permaban passing isnโ€™t out of the question), but also because numerous users have tried it and you donโ€™t want to look like a sockpuppet. Especially not one of Scrooge or ADOC(Ken), as thay is ban evasion. Ban evaders get banned here. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 03:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
I did things you didn't like starting in the first discussion you made, had a reason for them. I wasn't an asshole in the beginning, and I even answered your question in the beginning, holding my initial suspicions aside. Oh, and then people got uncomfortable at you, and then I decided to do something about it. And then you started acting like it's some sort of personal attack, accusing me of dishonesty (and then libel in a later ATIM case). Don't single me out here, other people don't like you either, and, after me summarizing just one of your attempts to have the mob do your bidding, you could probably hopefully connect the dots why. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png ๐ŸŽ„LeftyGreenMario!๐ŸŽ„(Mod) 03:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Civility parole for epic games[edit]

This vote has been closed. Please do not add, remove or change votes.
The result of this vote was: Fails. (7-10). Civility parole as a sanction was also deemed unneeded for future cases (so stop suggesting it). -- Techpriest (talk) 17:07, 1 March 2022 (UTC)


  1. Probably the best action. PoorlyDrawnRockford.jpeg Rockford the Roe boop my snootpraise Oscar Wilde 14:36, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  2. Queexchthonic murmurings 14:39, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
    Per all of the above. --Andrew5 mobile (talk) 15:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC) Opposing per below. --Andrew5 mobile (talk) 03:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
  3. More for the message sent than for any actual effectiveness. Plutocow (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  4. He acts like this, he deserves consequences. Jake Holmesyell at me 20:34, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  5. Fuck around, find out. -- Techpriest (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  6. I suppose honor must be satisfied.UncleKrampus (talk) 23:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  7. The grief from this user completely outweighs the non-existent benefits ShabiDOO 23:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)


  1. The "civility parole" is listed in RationalWiki:Active sanctions#Users under civility parole, but lacks the weight of being in mentioned at all in RationalWiki:Community Standards. Arguably, a non-Sysop, such as Epic Games, can already be put through the same incremental punishments without such a vote. Bongolian (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
    True, although formlilization is best. Plus, it prevents frivolous ATIMs and coops from being filed, which as we know just lead to the filing user getting a pi month ban. --Andrew5 mobile (talk) 18:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  2. What the fuck is a "civility parole"? You fucking people get worse by the day. Acei9 19:55, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
    1) Ace, do yourself a favor and stop unnecessarily lumping people together. 2) I think the civility parole should be deleted. As noted below, it was a one-off attempt to curb Oxy's excesses that did not work in the end. Bongolian (talk) 20:23, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
    I need do no such thing. You all know what I mean and who I'm referring to. Acei9 21:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
    True, however USHA was also on civility parole. I know this because on January 31, he got a 12 hour block from Rockford referencing that. So I wouldnโ€™t call it one off. --Andrew5 mobile (talk) 20:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
    That is correct. The vote on USH and the definition are here: RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation/Archive41#Civility parole on USH. The definition voted on was "For users who are incapable of acting civil in discussions with other users, a civility parole is a possible punishment. Users who are under civility parole can be short term blocked by moderators with incrementing ranges if they act incivil without having to go through the community voting process." Bongolian (talk) 20:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
    I didnโ€™t remember that. However I do know there was a coop 129 around that time, and I remember the frivolous threads at the end that wound up leading to his pi month ban in coop 130. And I actually remember it led to several CS amendments and clarifications until the drama finally ended in mid September. Oh and that was also when Scrooge was permabanned which I believe was either at the beginning of archive 43 or 44 here. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
    Checked. It was 44. ADOC was 45 I guess. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 21:23, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  3. As it seems that we have never actually created a "civility parole" sanction, I would suggest that it shouldn't be implemented.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  4. I oppose the existence of this sanction. ๐’ฎ๐‘’๐“‡๐‘’๐“ƒ๐‘’ talk 21:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
    Given thereโ€™s no consensus if it should exist, I think once this vote concludes I might put something on the CS talk page on a vote on if it should exist. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  5. Too difficult to enforce. I get you want a sort of symbolic sanction but this is a burden on moderation so I must oppose any future implementation of this sanction until it is either entirely reworked or removed. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png ๐ŸŽ„LeftyGreenMario!๐ŸŽ„(Mod) 00:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
  6. LGM and Bob have convinced me. After this vote, someone should take this to RW:CS talk page so we can have a vote on this sanction once and for all. Reminder:When doing the vote, make sure to have it codified in a way where if it were to fail and it removed, all the imposed ones are lifted. --Andrew5 mobile (talk) 03:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
  7. This is so much effort for someone that should just be banned considering how clear they've made it that civility is not something they care about. armed_roomba(she/her)What am I doing wrong this time? 06:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
  8. Nah. They're kinda new and they didn't improveโ€ฆ I'd rather (temp) ban them straight away and implement the (likely indefinite) sanction after that. โ€” Exaskliri (they/them) (talk | contribs) 16:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
  9. Might start a vote in the CS on abolishing civility parole. Monet Ye 14:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
    I donโ€™t see lifting sanctions on UShistoryanalyzer (which is all youโ€™d effectively be doing) getting much traction. Christopher (talk) 16:28, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
    Maybe there will be other users, who will have a civility parole sanction in the future. Monet Ye 07:19, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
  10. None of these weird sanctions have ever done any good. Christopher (talk) 16:28, 25 February 2022 (UTC)


If he acts uncivil, he can be banned, for 12 hours at first doubling with each offense. --Andrew5 mobile (talk) 15:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I dislike this sanction's existence. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png ๐ŸŽ„LeftyGreenMario!๐ŸŽ„(Mod) 15:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  • When did we actually create this? I can see nothing in community standards. Is is some WP thing that someone assumed must exist?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:25, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
I donโ€™t know. What I do know is that USHA is on it. P.S. Wikipedia doesnโ€™t have it, just topic bans, interaction bans, article bans, page bans, and that stuff. However if you act uncivil (which has harsher standards there), then you will be warned, and evantually reported to WP:ANIWikipedia. --Andrew5 mobile (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
IIRC, Techpriest created that sanction while Oxy was around making constructive edits to mainspace, but was being uncivil to other editors. PoorlyDrawnRockford.jpeg Rockford the Roe boop my snootpraise Oscar Wilde 17:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
I noted a while back in the talk page of the ongoing paroles that this is a poorly designed sanction.[6] --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png ๐ŸŽ„LeftyGreenMario!๐ŸŽ„(Mod) 20:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Obviously I've not been keeping up with disciplinary activity! While I don't want to get too wiki-lawyer I would suggest that if we have never actually formally created this sanction then it shouldn't be implemented.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
It was new to me when I returned to being active; from what I can tell from its use there doesn't seem to have been an instance where it wouldn't have just been better and have caused less work in the long run to ban instead. Queexchthonic murmurings 20:29, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
๐ŸŽถ To self (or others): mothball civility parole later. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png ๐ŸŽ„LeftyGreenMario!๐ŸŽ„(Mod) 20:39, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

pi Week ban for Epic Games[edit]

This vote has been closed. Please do not add, remove or change votes.
The result of this vote was: Passes. (10-4, 71% support) -- Techpriest (talk) 17:07, 1 March 2022 (UTC)


  1. Iโ€™m sorry, Epic Games, but that comment was wrong on many levels. Both your tban violation and your talk page. --Andrew5 mobile (talk) 17:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  2. Plutocow (talk) 18:36, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
    Bongolian (talk) 19:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  3. Fuck around, find out. -- Techpriest (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  4. The grief from this user completely outweighs the non-existent benefits ShabiDOO 23:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  5. ๐’ฎ๐‘’๐“‡๐‘’๐“ƒ๐‘’ talk 23:23, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
    The bare minimum for such a clear violation of civility. armed_roomba(she/her)What am I doing wrong this time? 01:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC) Changed my mind, see pi months armed_roomba(she/her)What am I doing wrong this time? 06:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
  6. At the very least. EG reacted to being sanctioned by in a two-to-one landslide engaging in bigoted vandalism. That's a pretty good sign we are dealing with a troll who won't change their behavior.-Flandres (talk) 04:43, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
  7. if we cant permaban the prick. though they are not active enough right now for that option means fuck all AMassiveGay (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
  8. Whatever drives bigotry away. Guy isn't particularly welcome by trans people either. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png ๐ŸŽ„LeftyGreenMario!๐ŸŽ„(Mod) 21:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
  9. โ€” Exaskliri (they/them) (talk | contribs) 15:51, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
  10. -Hastur! (talk) 22:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)


  1. PoorlyDrawnRockford.jpeg Rockford the Roe boop my snootpraise Oscar Wilde 14:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  2. I've blocked Scrooge for pi weeks once. We don't need a vote for this. GeeJayK (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
    No you didnโ€™t. --Andrew5 mobile (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
    Oh, it was only for 3 days. I'm more surprised that you're being this officious though, and checking the block log just to see if I was being accurate. GeeJayK (talk) 22:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
    I somewhat memorized Scroogeโ€™s block log, and the only pi week bans I remember were instantly overturned, such as LGMโ€™s which was overturned by Hastur or Harry Potterโ€™s which was overturned by Spud. So it seemed fishy to me at first. So I thought my memoildu might have served me wrong, but it didnโ€™t. Mainly, I checked to see if it was overturned as that wouldโ€™ve proven by point more, but whatever. --Andrew5 mobile (talk) 22:19, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
    I've blocked ADefenseofChristianity for pi weeks back in September (after an unblocked attempt by Hastur). Yes I checked the logs. No, no one changed the block settings for that timespan. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png ๐ŸŽ„LeftyGreenMario!๐ŸŽ„(Mod) 00:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
    I know, but Scrooge was different then ADOC. However, both were permabanned last fall. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 00:58, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
  3. Impossible anyway. Community standards states: "Penalty votes in the Chicken coop or at All things in moderation started within 24 hours of filing a complaint will be considered invalid".Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
    There was a case back then. I think the same applies to this ATiM case. Monet Ye 10:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
  4. Longer is better in this case. Bongolian (talk) 18:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)


pi Month ban for Epic Games[edit]

This vote has been closed. Please do not add, remove or change votes.
The result of this vote was: Passes. 10-5 (66.67% support). -- Techpriest (talk) 17:07, 1 March 2022 (UTC)


  1. They flat out ignored their topic ban, and used that to spew bigotry. Yeah, I don't think we need to keep this user around. At the very least, they should take a long break. Plutocow (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  2. Fuck around, find out. -- Techpriest (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  3. The grief from this user completely outweighs the non-existent benefits ShabiDOO 23:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  4. I didn't realize how flagrantly they ignored the topic ban along with the bigoted comments. This is definitely the bare minimum. armed_roomba(she/her)What am I doing wrong this time? 06:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
  5. Bongolian (talk) 06:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
  6. Unlikely to pass, but the right choice IMO. GeeJayK (talk) 20:48, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
  7. if we cant permaban the prick AMassiveGay (talk) 20:55, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
  8. Don't think bigotry gets a free pass just because it's not as prevalent as other kinds of bigotry. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png ๐ŸŽ„LeftyGreenMario!๐ŸŽ„(Mod) 21:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
  9. Just in case.-Flandres (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
  10. โ€” Exaskliri (they/them) (talk | contribs) 15:51, 24 February 2022 (UTC)


  1. PoorlyDrawnRockford.jpeg Rockford the Roe boop my snootpraise Oscar Wilde 14:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  2. Opposed for the reasons I laid out in my "Nay" vote to permabanning. โ˜ญComrade GCโ˜ญMinistry of Praise 14:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  3. Harsh. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 15:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  4. ๐’ฎ๐‘’๐“‡๐‘’๐“ƒ๐‘’ talk 21:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  5. Impossible anyway. Community standards states: "Penalty votes in the Chicken coop or at All things in moderation started within 24 hours of filing a complaint will be considered invalid".Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)


  • Think some of you might reconsider if those remarks were like directed at a gay or a trans person; "you're gay because you're too ugly for women"? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png ๐ŸŽ„LeftyGreenMario!๐ŸŽ„(Mod) 00:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Permanent ban for Epic Games[edit]

This vote has been closed. Please do not add, remove or change votes.
The result of this vote was: Fails. (11-10, 52%). -- Techpriest (talk) 17:07, 1 March 2022 (UTC)


  1. True colours shown. Queexchthonic murmurings 14:39, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  2. His comments directed at LedtyGreenMario were repulsive and completely unacceptable. That kind of Harassment of other users based on gender and sexuality should not be tolerated. Spud (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  3. they've been a troll from the start, and recent comments crossed a line. but for the record, i dont like how this vote has been managed or the speed at which it appeared. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  4. Bongolian (talk) 20:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  5. The insult is appalling. I will consider changing my vote if Epic Games apologizes. LongStylus (talk) 21:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  6. If they're not going to respond to lighter sanctions, this is the only real option. Maybe they can come back in a few years if they've matured, but they're clearly not going to be a productive user anytime soon. Plutocow (talk) 22:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
    Dat timestamp. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png ๐ŸŽ„LeftyGreenMario!๐ŸŽ„(Mod) 00:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
    Oh yeah! 22:22, 2/22/22! Andrew5 mobile (talk) 01:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
  7. Fuck around, find out. -- Techpriest (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  8. The grief from this user completely outweighs the non-existent benefits ShabiDOO 23:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
    I somewhat agree. However, this is why I am voting against a permaban (since in my votes I didnโ€™t explain it). I am believing in a baseball system of 3 strikes youโ€™re out. My idea is, we ban for pi weeks, if he comes back in mid March and doesnโ€™t improve, we ban for pi months and if by the summer there is no reform, there is grounds for a permaban. --Andrew5 mobile (talk) 23:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  9. You know, we are probably going to end up doing this later anyway.-Flandres (talk) 04:45, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
    I mildly disagree. We banned USHA in august for pi months, and when they returned in December, while they weee annoying, they havenโ€™t done anything bad enough to warrent another coop. Thatโ€™s why I generally oppose permabans, it denies them the ability to change. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 04:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
  10. Won't pass but bigotry shouldn't be tolerated. They also repeatedly make trans people uncomfortable too. If vote is invalid, just, idk, hold another vote for the vote lol, though I don't think anyone really wants to backtrack on a drama case on a questionable sea lion for the sake of a community standard. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png ๐ŸŽ„LeftyGreenMario!๐ŸŽ„(Mod) 21:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
  11. Yeah, Epic didn't improve. I'd rather sentence them a 1-year ban, though. *shrug* โ€” Exaskliri (they/them) (talk | contribs) 15:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)


  1. Overkill. PoorlyDrawnRockford.jpeg Rockford the Roe boop my snootpraise Oscar Wilde 14:36, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  2. It's been less than a week, give things time. โ˜ญComrade GCโ˜ญMinistry of Praise 14:49, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  3. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 15:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  4. Jake Holmesyell at me 20:35, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  5. Too much. GeeJayK (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  6. Excessive. ๐’ฎ๐‘’๐“‡๐‘’๐“ƒ๐‘’ talk 21:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  7. Tempting, but with the speed this case is going at a permaban feels like jumping to a space that we haven't really explored yet. armed_roomba(she/her)What am I doing wrong this time? 06:29, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
  8. Impossible anyway. Community standards states: "Penalty votes in the Chicken coop or at All things in moderation started within 24 hours of filing a complaint will be considered invalid".Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:11, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
    By that metric thoigh, Epic Gamesโ€™s topic ban should be lifted, given how that vote was started only 13 minutes after the coop was filed. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 17:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
  9. I never vote for perma-ban unless the person has been banned multiple times before or they do something especially egregious... Corm (yak) 17:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
  10. Monet Ye 18:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)


Also it doesn't look like anyone else has done this, so @Epic Games armed_roomba(she/her)What am I doing wrong this time? 01:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

The eligible vote thing[edit]

So I wanted to raise the issue, and Iโ€™ll ping @Bob M here who raised the issue. The vote was not 24 hours after the thread was raised, which should be ineligible. That being said, Epic Gamesโ€™s topic ban (RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation/Archive52), that also didnโ€™t wait 24 hours and by that metric, his tban should be reverted. And while not a vote delay issue, Ken was permabanned on only 58% support, so that should be reversed too as not hitting the 2/3 requirement.

So, are we going to let these minor issues slide and keep the tban and ban of Ken intact, or are we going to reverse it due to it not strictly adhering to CS? Andrew5 mobile (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

You just can't help but do everything to piss off everyone on the site, can you? Only authoritarians care more about following the letter of the law than the spirit, and this site is strictly anti-authoritarian. Inmate XIII (talk) 18:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
@Inmate XIIII understand you hate authoritians but please read the whole thread before commenting, particularly Bobโ€™s 20:59 comment. Andrew5 (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Read. I think the same applies to this ATiM case. Monet Ye 19:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Also, look at the "alright. Mod steps in" thread in coop case 116. Opening votes earlier than 24 hours is hardly unprecedented. Besides, the CS pretty openly says it is not a collection of hard and fast rules.-Flandres (talk) 19:55, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
I know that, but it appears people are voting against due to this reason it should be settled.Andrew5 (talk) 20:04, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Answer to your question? No. Drop it. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png ๐ŸŽ„LeftyGreenMario!๐ŸŽ„(Mod) 21:12, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
As the mod in that coop (and the one who has thrown mod fiat before); timing rules purely exist to prevent a premature vote from occuring. Basically, if discussion strands pretty quickly or turns into a "yes hrm, user is bad, we should do something about that" thing, it's okay to just expedite the voting process because nobody benefits from an arbitrary hour wait if it's already clear that people want the vote. If it's really that big of a deal, just extend the deadline of the vote to incorporate the full voting time. Also people can vote for whatever reason they want. I can vote in support or against something because the sun told me to and that would be just as valid as a well opined reason to vote a certain way. -- Techpriest (talk) 22:29, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
there 'should' have been more time for discussion in this case, at the very least an opportunity for epic games to explain themselves before the vote was set up. not that would have made much difference considering their response when they did show up. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
particularly as permaban is an option here.AMassiveGay (talk) 22:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
the business with ken and 'only' 58% thing is dogshit though. it had never been enforced before and was only brought up to try and save GR from a permaban when hastur just couldnt bear to see them go. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
and this multiple different votes for different thing is just complete wank. fold them in into one vote and pick the one option AMassiveGay (talk) 22:45, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Yeah.... Why the yeas and nays for each block and not just block length 1, block length 2, status quo, etc. I get yeas and nays for different actions like sysop revoke and vandal bin, but for block variations? About that 58% however, we tried to change it to simple majority.... Didn't work. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png ๐ŸŽ„LeftyGreenMario!๐ŸŽ„(Mod) 00:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)


Tallied up the results. A 1 month ban will be applied to the user Epic Games. Anyone who reads this can archive it. -- Techpriest (talk) 17:07, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, a Yea vote should count for all the smaller durations and a Nay vote count for all longer durations, as per how these votes are supposed to be set up. I'd try to work out if that would change the outcome but it feels too much like wikilawyering. I wish someone had caught the goof earlier so we could fix the poll without risking mucking up votes already cast. Queexchthonic murmurings 17:15, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Please check the RW:CS, we discussed this before and clarified it. Votes have been working like this for a few years now. The current wording is Penalty votes dealing with a user's removal from the site will be applied based on the longest successfully imposed duration. Basically if you don't think a punishment is accurate, don't vote for it. -- Techpriest (talk) 17:16, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Pi Month ban is 3.14 months. That is 2292 hours. ShabiDOO 17:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Changed it. Monet Ye 18:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Ack. My mistake. That's why there's a second pair of eyes I guess. -- Techpriest (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Andrew and gc[edit]

This is all getting out of hand. 'Playing it by ear' or individual judgement calls is not working. A policy decision of some kind is necessary to deal with this shit because it is fucking tiresome AMassiveGay (talk) 18:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Andrew is mindbogglingly stupid and GC keeps engaging the stupidity, which provokes Andrew to keep being stupid. IBANs won't work, Andrew just drains the patience of everyone else even if they don't engage with him as much (there's plenty of editors, me included, who mostly have been away from the site a bit because they don't want to deal with him) and he has admitted before that he was spamming the bar with his weather posts. I'm half of a mind to say that we should do something to keep this wiki from becoming an Andrew ghost town, I just don't have any idea what to specifically do or what that would look like in the Community Standards. I'd say he's teetering on the edge of being a troll (and arguably crossed it with the previous ATIM section here) if you need something I guess. -- Techpriest (talk) 19:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
I've lost patience with Andrew5. Arguing that we should unban Ken based on rules lawyerng is too much. As it has been discussed before, there is a general distaste for relitigating past cases. Bongolian (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
@Bongolian (1) this might not have been the right thread (2) I was unaware of those discussions. My first big discipline discussion I was involved in was Scrooge 1, then USHA 1, then USHA 2, and only then did I get more involved.Andrew5 (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
I think we need to create a new category under which we can permaban people. I suggest that something along the grounds of "engaging in relentless and premeditated stupidity".Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
At minimum I'd personally suggest removing both Andrew5 accounts' autopatrolled rights due to that Salon edit war. That allows better protection of the Salon in case that shitshow happens again.
However the "unban Ken" comment is evidence to me though that Andrew5 is more disruptive troll than an idiot. Same as this account Gale5050 was on Uncyclopedia, I don't think anything short of a block will work. "Long term trolling" is an acceptable block reason. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 19:56, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
At the very least, a ban from posting in the Saloon may be warranted. Plutocow (talk) 19:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
I based it solely off the 58% support, though reading through coop 101, I personally wouldโ€™ve abstained from voting in such coop. I am not sure he shouldโ€™ve been permabanned. Plus I wouldโ€™ve learned towards โ€œvote to confirm banโ€ over โ€œunbanโ€.
Had I been a sysop, GC likely would have had to cave in somewhat like with Dutchbag. The only reason why Iโ€™m being attacked is because of this. Also being centrist, or even right leaning, isnโ€™t trolling. Andrew5 (talk) 20:08, 23 February 2022 (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”˜ This site pisses me off more day by day. Itโ€™s getting harder to have interactions while being civil. At this point even thinking about RW is making me angry. The bar just isnโ€™t fun for me anymore. Honestly if I was banned from the bar I might be happy in the long run. It will make me happier in the long run. After I got banned from Uncyclopedia, I actually enjoyed it after the initial triggeredness (of course the false sock accusations made it worse, I only block evaded once and that was on July 16, but thatโ€™s irrelevant). I enjoyed RW more when i didnโ€™t participate in the bar, and people were happier.

So if I am banned from participating in the bar, could we maybe drop everything else this time? Andrew5 (talk) 20:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

"Had I been a sysop, GC likely would have had to cave in somewhat like with Dutchbag." I didn't cave with Dutchbag. The fact that you think you would have any level of power over me is hilarious. โ˜ญComrade GCโ˜ญMinistry of Praise 20:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
(EC) I don't really think something so devoid of meaning like being a centrist is a problem, Andrew. The fact that you remain oblivious is. People with far less patience than me have already gave you some feedback and some advices, but IMO you're not trying to improve. GeeJayK (talk) 20:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
I know this makes me look bad but Iโ€™m getting a bit too unstable to focus on improving. I should probably focus a lot more on real life then I do on RW. I have too many factors in real life that are going to make it difficult to improve here. On Uncyclopedia my grades actually began to rank because I was so worried there, and I donโ€™t want to let that happen again. That and also Iโ€™m getting angrier with the users. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 20:45, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
If this site pisses you off so much why are you still here?-Flandres (talk) 20:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
There is nothing "centrist" for rules lawyering to support one of RW's longest term disruptive trolls, that shows you have zero respect for the community in my opinion. You've been banned or blocked from two wikis and are well on your way to being banned or blocked from a third, despite the three having rather different cultures. If you need a time out, I certainly would advise it, just reflect that if you seem to be causing drama everywhere you go, it's pretty much a given that the problem is not everyone else. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 20:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) (reply to Flandres)Honestly I donโ€™t know. Probably because I donโ€™t have too much else to do in my free time, and Iโ€™ve made such a habit in coming here that I just canโ€™t let go. Bbb23 on Wikipedia got pissed off adter there Checkuser rights were revoked but found themselves unable to leave. Iโ€™m feeling the same. I think Iโ€™m progressing throughout the 5 stages of grief here. I trinkets evantually, when I hit stage 5, Iโ€™ll Have an improvement. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 20:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Imo gc needs to learn to stop engaging and stop doing disruptive things, especially using his sysop tools in ways that I'm starting to question if he should remain with such tools, esp with prior behavior with tools. We'll deal with Andrew but GC IS making this unnecessarily difficult. He won't stop edit warring despite lengthy record of being told to stop, so he's actually pushing me for a promotion. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png ๐ŸŽ„LeftyGreenMario!๐ŸŽ„(Mod) 21:04, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Andrew5 : If you want to stay off this site, we can assist you, eh? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png ๐ŸŽ„LeftyGreenMario!๐ŸŽ„(Mod) 21:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario Slapped GC with a wet sea animal for feeding the trolls too much... again. Anyway, I'm definetly of the mind that Andrew needs a forced wikibreak at least. That "he drains everyone with his bullshit" bit is not a joke; I know some people went mostly inactive specifically because he kept trying to officiate and put salt on every little slug. -- Techpriest (talk) 22:33, 23 February 2022 (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”˜ Just disallow Andrew from making Saloon threads, and tell GC to stop feeding the troll. Boom. Problem solved. This is not worth the amount of effort people are putting into it (for the record, the amount of effort that should be put into it is none). armed_roomba(she/her)What am I doing wrong this time? 22:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Just gave him a month-break so he can take care of his own problems IRL. If a mod ir a sysop disagrees, please revert. GeeJayK (talk) 23:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
That's unfortunate. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png ๐ŸŽ„LeftyGreenMario!๐ŸŽ„(Mod) 00:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
A one-month ban sounds good. Andrew5, I wish you the best in improving yourself. Bongolian (talk) 01:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Just for the record. I said IRL stuff because he mentioned problems at school. Now I read his comment again and I realized he was actually talking about Uncyclopedia. I don't have any form of relationship with him outside RW and I don't know anything about his life. That being said, I think this is for the best for everyone, Andrew and the rest of the community, since he would probably get cooped ceteris paribus, which would be far more stressful for everyone. GeeJayK (talk) 01:48, 24 February 2022 (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 have a new suggestion for when Andrew5 is back, which may help reduce the drama and pain. Unlike various others, I haven't had strong feelings about Andrew5, and still don't, but I didn't originally have much hope for him either, because he seemed like the type of person who cares too little to change. Having read Andrew5's newer input, I see he's being evasive in his responses (and being called on it), and more offensively continuing the pattern I already described.

Andrew5 basically doesn't try to be right, only to appear to others to be right, in ways that seem low-effort, repetitive, and not even so convincing. When challenged he often doesn't even try to convince but, it seems, rather to distract, and to use rules and definitions he knows of as a means to that end. When people try to call him on things, I've seen him distract them again and again by playing with words. It's definitely not sincere discussion, and even if Andrew5 is not a typical troll, the long-term behavior is definitely disrespectful and manipulative. I think those are the two keywords, and that here, and in general, you should consider such disrespectful and manipulative behavior to be a blockable offense. (It is indeed a drain of the type which sensible communities should not accept, in my view.) And if it gets worse instead of better, I think a permanent ban is actually reasonable, and would not be any great loss to this community. I simply think Andrew5 should be given a chance to not dodge things, to actually be sincere, whether or not he takes it. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 17:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)