RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive62

J. Zoia
I was told to come here by. Hey, if you want to bin me or say my edits are crap, that's fine, but I am indeed a long time lurker (since 2009, believe it or not), and the reason I made so many nominations was not to troll, but because I wanted to give people who aren't part of the usual buddy system a chance to be a mod. That doesn't mean they're going to win, but as a lurker (who honestly wants to puke at what this site has become in the last few years), I want to see at least the chance of diversity in the ranks. So please reinstate the nominations and talk page notices. Sorry if I otherwise caused any problems. It&#39;s Jenn (talk) 01:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You miss the entire point of being a moderator. Moderator status has next to nothing to do with diversity, especially when concerning with mostly faceless users online. Being a moderator means you have the experience and qualifications of, you know, regulating stuff on the wiki. The fact that you nominated users for a such a position that requires dedication and activity who haven't been active since 2010 is especially fishy, and I don't believe that anyone with honest intentions would nominate such users for a role like this. Also, sockpuppeting to bypass your vandal bin is highly frowned upon and only serves to put you in a darker shade of gray, don't be surprised when others ban your account for bypassing vandal bin rights. 01:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I normally would not have, but you said to come here to discuss, and I can't do that from the bin. It&#39;s Jenn (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And just because you don't think they would be good mods doesn't mean the voters agree. If everyone agrees with you, what have you to worry about? It&#39;s Jenn (talk) 01:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually you can discuss your Coop case from the VB you just have to wait 30 minutes between posts. Comrade GC (talk) 01:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You can still edit while you're binned, ftw. I binned you mostly because I wanted to brake your highly disruptive, excessive nominations of random users (also in addition to your questionable edit history, which let's face it, doesn't help your case at all). And no, I think I'm absolutely correct when I think that users who hadn't been active in this wiki since 2010 are a genuinely good nomination for moderators. I don't anyone with honest intentions would nominate someone like them to be mods. 01:46, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * They are people who are active when I was more active, and I was smart enough to realize the reason was to stop the nominations. I assumed that's why you disabled autoblock. How are the nominations disruptive? Only the ones that still pay attention to the site a little will even know that they were nominated, which is why I nominated so many. You are probably a sock of LGM yourself because I don't buy the "twin sister" thing. It&#39;s Jenn (talk) 01:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And not all of them are ancient. Koidevelopment certainly isn't. But he seems like a nice guy. It&#39;s Jenn (talk) 01:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Active. Only nominate active editors. —ClickerClock (talk) 01:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If you don't want to see MC or Pbfreespace3 nominated, fair enough, but can I at least nominate people like Human and Ace? I want to see some old guard people return, and I know some of them lurk. It&#39;s Jenn (talk) 01:58, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ace is retired. Comrade GC (talk) 02:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * My issue isn't because they're ancient. It's because they're inactive. Inactive, meaning that they don't show signs of being on the wiki currently speaking. And I don't really care if they were active back in the day, moderator status mostly deals with people who are at the present time ie people who can actually fulfill the requirements necessary to sustain the role, meaning they show signs of patrolling the wiki, maintaining potential discord, making edits, and all that. That's what being a mod is. You know why people don't go around the blue nominating left and right like what you do? It's because they're honest, and they know how this system works, and judging from your edits, I still don't believe for a smidge that you're being honest.
 * And go ahead, use the "I know who you are but what am I" method of argument, assume that I'm a sockpuppet of LeftyGreenMario, that'll get you unvandal binned quicker.
 * With that recent facade you pulled off, I honestly don't think you deserve to nominate even legit users for the role. 02:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Recen facade? Just so you know, there is no cabal. It&#39;s Jenn (talk) 02:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Coupled that with your edit history, it's the straw that broke the camel's back. 02:04, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Here's the thing, this "shoot first, ask later" mentality is exactly why I don't want to see people like you (or your sister, supposedly) be a moderator. The more competition people like you have, the less likely you are to be a moderator. So I don't care if Ace or MC only gets one vote, if it by chance takes a vote from someone like you, I'm happy. And I did initially think LGM would be a good mod, but I have since changed my mind. Donald Trump would be a better mod than her. It&#39;s Jenn (talk) 02:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with your mentality of shoot first, ask later mentality is discouraged. You could have looked at the guidelines on what could make a good moderator before nominating a bunch of people, as well as being more careful before you think about the excessive nominating. And now, you're being spiteful. That's adorable. 02:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I can gladly give you a chance. RationalWiki:Monday morning dumpster dive needs someone brave enough to clean the article up. So if you contribute a decent amount, I will argue against the vandal binning you. —ClickerClock (talk) 02:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It isn't adorable, my cat pouting at me is adorable, this is just petty and childish. Comrade GC (talk) 02:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think cats are cute at all Dude, if you make good contributions, I'll be the first person to unvandal bin you. 02:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * e/c I'll take a look at some of those article CC and see if there's anything valuable I can contribute. And you're right, I shouldn't have been bitter in responding. It&#39;s Jenn (talk) 02:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Please don't take any of this personally. All I want to do is make you a better user. What makes me happy is to see other users learning from their mistakes. I make plenty of mistakes big-time too, don't worry about it. 02:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

A few things for me to have gotten suspicious:
 * We have a given history of a repeated wandal who has attempted various attacks against particular users. This vandal in particular makes particularly nasty remarks regarding women, but also specifically cheerleaders. Evidence:, , , , and . This person in the past has "tried" to be nicer too as far as I recall, but the revisions are deleted, so I can't really dig them up.
 * There is a history of a troll signing under at least one female name just to vandalize. Evidence:,.
 * You happen to make an oddly specific statement about yourself and it so happens to be a cheerleader, and you also make statements about your personal appearance which is also another part of the pattern of that troll behavior (troll frequently makes comments about personal appearance). Your low quality edits such as this, your strange straw-manlike, facade-like comments such as accusing misogyny where none obviously exists randomly asking what corporation controls RationalWiki, making bizarre nominations including nominating what is apparently yourself given your userpage says you're the same people, and your comment on also a specific subject on the Saloon Bar which so happens to be about the troll and you criticizing Anna Livia, a known troll target has also reduced the cushion of benefit of doubt to me. Finally, one of your admitted sockpuppets, User:Alyssa Bryant who also had a history of strange behavior (though Alyssa Bryant was subject to some misogynistic anti-cheerleader IP attacks of a similar nature, it suddenly doesn't cancel out your actions though). I believe I have every reason to be suspicious. If you want to earn your benefit of doubt, I suggest you make higher-quality edits and be well aware of why people distrust you, and tread very cautiously. I hope you now understand very well why people, including me, behave the way they do but once you have earned our trust by actual proving you're not a troll (making consistently high-quality edits, adequately contributing to our discussions, showing genuine willingness to learn how RationalWiki works and our mindsets) then I'll forgive you. 02:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * So because some asshole goes and says nasty things about cheerleaders and sometimes creates accounts with female names, anyone who is a cheerleader will be vandal binned? I'm not trying to be mean in saying that, but seriously think about what you are doing here. It&#39;s Jenn (talk) 03:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That alone would be reason for suspicion, but obviously not enough for vandal binning. But check other reasons above: the troll has a history of signing up as female names too and you on the other hand have made questionable edits. I'm explaining why we're behaving the way we are; that way, I try to clear up any confusion or misunderstanding and try to work to solve the problem (and you can pinpoint what you're doing wrong so you can improve on that). We're suspicious because you're strangely specific about who you are and making, again, low-quality and strange edits. Overall, for us, something feels off. I operate on doubt, though you've done very little to convince me and others that we should trust you. I've already given you advice on what you can do to earn our trust, and you still have that chance to prove yourself, so follow that and you can convince us that you're real, not a persona of this troll. If you don't want any more baggage associated with your accounts, then you can also consider Bongolian's advice on creating a new account and behaving from the getgo. 03:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * So wait, you are basically trying to protect me (Alyssa Bryant) from being impersonated by this... guy, right? It&#39;s Jenn (talk) 03:55, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Pretty much. —ClickerClock (talk) 03:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and as I said, if there is anything else you don't understand, then feel free to ask. I'm still holding out that you're telling the truth, so take that as a good thing and work on building trust with people so you don't get banned because of the real possibility the entire thing is a misunderstanding. 04:04, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * (responding to a deleted revision) I, unfortunately, still can't make a confident statement on the relationship between this person and your account. I'm still erring on the side you're not Grawp though, given that you wanted that link you posted hidden from public view. Though still, the best way to earn our trust remains, follow the advice. You know what our advice is? Do you agree that it's reasonable? 04:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. Can you also rename the accounts (this one and J. Zoia) to like, I don't know, dumb mistake or something and block them so no one can ever hack them? It&#39;s Jenn (talk) 04:20, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Renaming is not something I'm able to do. You will have to contact an active mod here. You will recognize a few since some participated in this discussion, though anyone except Reverend Black Percy may accept your request (because Reverend Black Percy is inactive). 04:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Hug Party
Let's all hug each other! —ClickerClock (talk) 02:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 03:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 03:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comrade GC (talk) 03:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm too manly for hugs. 03:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You are literally a baby. Babies love hugs. Join us. —ClickerClock (talk) 03:25, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * .....you got me there  03:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * All aboard! Bongolian (talk) 04:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * - 05:46, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Not enough hugs in the world. RoninMacbeth (talk) 05:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

This...
Is a waste of everyone's time. J. Zoia (who, by the way, hasn't entirely convinced me they aren't Grawp) hasn't broken any rules. No rules have been broken, so I say archive this case before it goes on much longer. RoninMacbeth (talk) 02:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I sorta disagree with the notion that this user hasn't broken any rules but I digress. 02:35, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Let's vote
I'd rather not bicker about this, so let's vote! 02:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Unbin J. Zoia

 * 1) Unless you can show me some way J. Zoia has actually broken a rule, I think they should be unbinned. RoninMacbeth (talk) 02:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) —ClickerClock (talk) 02:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Please. It&#39;s Jenn (talk) 03:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Invalid vote. Obviously, you're going to vote for yourself. 03:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Innocent until proven guilty. I think this person should be unbinned; it should be the other way around and it's still an opportunity for this user to gain benefit of doubt. 08:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Remind me what it is they have supposed to have done AMassiveGay (talk) 12:20, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) I still think they're a troll but innocent until proven guilty. Christopher (talk) 12:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Keep J. Zoia binned

 * 1) A few quality edits to prove themselves won't hurt this user. Comrade GC (talk) 02:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 03:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) It's not worth the effort to care about this trollish account that has made minimal contributions. If they actually want to be constructive, they should create a new account and behave themselves from the get go. Bongolian (talk) 03:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding the innocent until proven guilty votes by and  above, it is innocent until proven guilty but only up to a point. 1) User:J. Zoia was already viewed as guilty by being vandal binned. This was perfectly reasonably because of their recent action included nominating 19 non-active members to be mod (possibly an attempt to later hack the election). The nominees included at least two with Sysoprevoke (-Mona-, Conservapedian Troll), and one without even autopatrolled status (Mei II). 2) User:Alyssa Bryant/User:J. Zoia/User:It's Jenn are all the same troll. See the home pages of J. Zoia (first version) and User:Alyssa Bryant. 3) Other evidence given above by  4) They're wasting our time over nothing: perfect troll activity. Please also reconsider your votes,,  and . Bongolian (talk) 17:58, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "already viewed as guilty by being vandal binned" Which was, if I recall, a unilateral action we are in the process of reviewing. The application of punishment should not be used to determine guilt in any instance. As for the nominations, I can see how this is suspicious. But unless it is a violation of any rule or community standard, it's not bin-worthy unless the offending user was told to stop beforehand, which I see no evidence of.
 * Again, I cannot stress this enough: I will not support the application of disclipinary action until either an actual rule has been broken or other means of resolving the issue have been exhausted. Cooping and binning should be measures of penultimate resort, not the first. RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * as i understand it do not nominees have to accept the nomination? even then, you have no obligation to vote for them. fail to see the the issue here. if this is anything to go by, i know who i wont be be voting for. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, those two above has made a point. The binning also wasn't done by community consensus but by one user (though to be fair, I think J. Zoia has received multiple comments questioning this user's contributions). 19:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) All of the above. 03:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Maintain the bin and archive this coop. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 03:55, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree, it's 6 to 5, and the time-waster troll has been sockpuppeting to try to stir things up. Bongolian (talk) 04:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The only active sockpuppet I have is It's Jenn, and I have been good with it. Anything else checkuser it, you'll see it's not me. I still think you are a misogynistic pig. J. Zoia (talk) 15:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * stop blindly accusing others of misogyny when someone disagrees with you for the love of Baby Luigi 21:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Also we don't have checkuser. Christopher (talk) 21:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with . Coming up with conspiratorial misogyny only undermines cases when there's actual misogyny. Also, a lot of people here are feminists, so you are barking up the wrong tree here. No one has called you a "bitch" or a "cunt", we only called you a "troll", a troll who happens to identify themselves as female. 21:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's pretty disingenuous calling people here a woman-hater anyhow. 21:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's also a woman who brought you into this mess in the first place sooooooo 21:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Keep binned for now, bin still lets J prove themself. If they prove to be constructive, unbin. CorruptUser (talk) 06:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)