User talk:Plutocow

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archives for this talk page: , (new)

You are mentioned in the coop, don't worry it's nothing bad though[edit]

A case involving you has been raised at the Chicken Coop. Feel free to comment.

King Bowser K. Rool (talk) 22:20, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Blocking account reasons[edit]

Noticed the logs recently. Don't attach a name. Just block their accounts and cite the normal reasons ("ban evasion", "harassment", "generic vandalism", "troll", etc). If you insist on insults, be more generic instead. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 07:53, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

It's a long-term ban evader User:Gorilla lover/User:Kamen rider saber. All of their accounts should be perma'd on sight with TPA revoked, since it's not like they even pretend to be good faith accounts. Plutocow (talk) 08:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm fully aware. However, we are giving the troll undue notoriety in these block logs, which is why I recommend referring in generic terms. Besides, their edits alone are obvious in their attempts at disruption to long-term ban, so notification on who is ban evading isn't necessary, unlike blocks on suspected Ken socks or Oliver D Smith socks, which are, in contrast, sometimes more subtle and don't immediately break our Community Standards. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 08:17, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

What specifically was wrong with the edits[edit]

Or was it like a reflex Bob-smith (talk) 22:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Your edits to that page, as well as your seeming vendetta against RW, are heavily reminiscent of a certain (relatively) recently banned user. I don't have enough evidence to indict (yet), but I have my eye on you. Plutocow (talk) 23:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
It's entirely possible that individual edited dozens of pages since he was banned and you only care about that page becase you are a bigot Bob-smith (talk) 23:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Virgin shaming is the realm of low-status bullies and bigots. Bob-smith (talk) 23:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
agreed 2600:4040:403C:F300:9254:9EBC:7A0A:9106 (talk) 23:03, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
(EC)Is it really a coincidence that we have two people with an extreme vendetta against RW and an obsession with whitewashing that page? Choose your words carefully, for I am this close to taking you to ATIM. Plutocow (talk) 23:04, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
So you can ban bob-smith again or? It was obvious neil was writing for months as it was all on the same types of pages. .wiki has sent him legal notices to stop editing incel wiki and he hasn't stopped so good luck 2600:4040:403C:F300:9254:9EBC:7A0A:9106 (talk) 23:06, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
I'll take it to ATIM to be sure, but yeah that's what I want to do. Plutocow (talk) 23:07, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Well no laws are being broken because ya'll didn't /64 ban any of his non-proxy clearnet IPs for months of his accepted writing 2600:4040:403C:F300:9254:9EBC:7A0A:9106 (talk) 23:10, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Why are you doing this?[edit]

Two mods ask you to stop changing blocks of previously blocked users and you start changing blocks from a year ago. Why? GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 18:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Number one, when did this happen, number two, those were socks of banned users, number three, it's just routine maintainance of the vandal bin so it only shows users that are actually, well, binned. What's your problem? Plutocow (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Number one Me and LGM sent you messages via blocks. You even unblocked yourself when she blocked you. Number two, we believe these are socks of banned users, that's why we used the vandal bin. Number three, you're giving them attention when you block older accounts that they don't even use anymore, so there's no need to block them just to make them think that what they did a year ago still matters (it doesn't). Number four, do you see anyone else regularly changing blocks? I honestly don't. I'm not going to dispute this anymore, but I'm politely asking you, don't change blocks unless you have a good reason for it. I'm sure you understand that other users are just as capable as you to judge whether a block was enough or not. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 18:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Blocking socks of banned users isn't a matter of preference, it's a matter of policy. If you think this is a serious issue, take it to ATIM, but blocks on a sysop account that can easily be undone aren't exactly a binding ruling. Plutocow (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
But I didn't say you're breaking any rule, I'm saying that you shouldn't block older accounts and give trolls attention. Anyway, this was just an advice. You're free to follow it or not. Again, I'm not going to dispute your decision. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 18:58, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
To be clear, in some cases it's better to err on the side of caution when it comes to potential socks. In most cases the socking user usually can't contain themselves when needled even slightly or tends to fall in patterns of editing the same pages. That being said, wantonly going on a blocking spree of potential socks is no better than that time where Oxy spend several months blocking random accounts until people reminded her that she wasn't an elected mod to begin with and even if she were, that's not within her capabilities. We don't have CheckUser (thank god with all the privacy laws around these days), and a part of that is that we assume good faith on behalf of those editors. The vandal bin is a nice go-between for a potential sockpuppet; if they're a regular user they'll just continue on as they're doing and maybe after a bit complain and then we empty the bin. Most of the sockpuppeting users just get completely unhinged about how we're "suppressing their ability to edit RW" like its some sort of innate right everyone has. I warned you about being a zealot with tech tools back on RW:BASEMENT but really that goes for sysop tools as well. -- Techpriest (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
In none of those cases was there any room for doubt, as there is only one troll with an obsession with cheerleaders and I'm pretty sure that Ken admitted in one of his essays that he was the one spamming the "dramagate" crap. Sometimes, ban evading accounts can get more obvious in hindsight, which seems to be the case with these now-banned accounts. Plutocow (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Can you please stop changing blocks of these accounts to indef when the ones originally imposed are good enough? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 02:10, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I said stop. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 19:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)


You give me Ninja when I clog up recent changes (not that I'm ungrateful) but I never see you use it when you clog up recent changes. VeeMeow? 04:38, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Editing six category pages isn't exactly clogging the recent changes. Plutocow (talk) 04:40, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Whatever floats your boat. VeeMeow? 04:43, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Suppression of Special:AbuseLog/86925[edit]

Why was Special:AbuseLog/86925 suppressed? I wasn't around back then, so I don't know what happened. If it's just something that was going on back then just say so, no need to get into the specifics. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 10:45, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Potential doxing. It's usually best to be safe in these instances. Plutocow (talk) 16:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
No problem then. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2023 (UTC)