RationalWiki talk:Chicken coop/Archive6

About the Chicken Coop vote for User:GiuocoPiano
This is User:GiuocoPiano.

A few points:

1. There are those who are voting to keep User:GiuocoPiano as an editor for discussion/debate purposes. But there never was any cordial discussion/debate as User: Grammar Commie we erasing/reverting a large portion of what I posted and lying about why he deleted the material. And despite Ace inviting me to this wiki several times to debate him, I don't see Ace investing the time in battling Grammar Commie to prevent him from capriciously erasing my edits nor do I see anyone else at RW wanting to. So the is a non-starter. To pretend otherwise is delusional.

I wrote to Ace McWicked, that in all likelihood, I am either going to get banned by RW editors as an outcome in the current vote or Grammar Commie will continue to use his admin powers to erase much of my edits and other editors will not prevent him from doing so. So in all likelihood I see myself editing RW very little or not at all in the future. There are too many opportunities on the web that allow open discussion to bother with websites which censor dissenting views due to the fragility of their own stubbornly held ideas.

Next, setting aside that my political/religious views have changed over time, Grammar Commie's insistence that I only be allowed to debate at this wiki (which likely will never happen due to continual censoring) if I am willing to change my mind about Christianity/God/etc. is a ridiculous position to take. Do university debates only happen if both debaters agree to be willing to change their position due to the other sides arguments. No! For example, is William Lane Craig only allowed to debate at a secular university if he agrees to be willing to change his mind about the existence of God in response to his opponents arguments? Is the atheist Dan Barker only allowed to debate at a Christian university if he agrees to be willing to change his mind if presented with Christian arguments? No.

I found Grammar Commie's position comical given that his modus operandi is to erase material contrary to his own views instead of coming up with reasonable counter arguments.

Furthermore, there have been accusations that I am supposedly a "homophobe", yet not a scintilla of evidence was ever brought forth to support this position. I only fear God (Deal with Christians taking this position because Christians taking this position is not ever going to change - period).

As far as my recent editing at RW, I had planned far fewer edits. But when Grammar Commie engaged in his obnoxious behavior, I decided to put the bully in his place.

2. As far as contributing to the main space of RW, this wiki is dying and probably will continue to die. Right-wing populism is growing and secular leftism is not gaining traction. And from a global perspective the world is going through desecularization and will continue to do so and this will have an effect on the Western World in the 21st century. Already Protestant Europe and France have seen secularization rates be zero while facing rising fundamentalist Christian/Muslim populations. So why would want to invest in main space edits in a dying wiki?

But this is a moot point as RW editors will not allow factual edits which are contrary to the secular liberal/leftist ideology to be posted at its wiki.

3. My guess is that the secular leftists at RW are diehards.

In the Kubler-Ross model of 5 stages of grief the stages are: denial, anger, depression, bargaining and acceptance.

RW editors by in large are the anger stage. They can no longer be in the denial stage. Why?

In 2019, John Feffer wrote at the left leaning The Nation:


 * "In the Americas, the Trump tsunami has swept across both continents and the 'pink tide' of progressivism has all but disappeared from the southern half of the hemisphere...


 * In this planet-wide rising tide of right-wing populism, the liberal left commands only a few disconnected islands — Iceland, Mexico, New Zealand, South Korea, Spain, Uruguay... Worse, crafty operators with even more ambitious agendas stand ready to destroy the liberal status quo once and for all."

In September 2018, Pew Research indicated: "Due to the decline of the center-left across much of Western Europe and the comparative steadiness of the center-right, most Western European countries are led by center-right parties, as measured by the party of the prime minister or other head of government." In June 2014, Forbes reported that it is undeniable that politically right wing parties are ascendant in Europe.

RW editors banning me would be like putting their collective finger in the RW dam, while facing a tidal wave of right-wing populism in the world and facing a world that is experiencing desecularization. In short, an exercise in futility.

4. If RW does decide to curb the obnoxious behavior of Grammar Commie, then let me know. Otherwise, I stand by what I wrote above.

5. Lastly, RobS takes the position that you cannot really ban someone from a wiki. It will turn into a game of whack-a-mole. He is probably right given the multitude of proxies.Margon282 (talk) 03:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ken, I'm a better class of scum than you. I don't feel the need to delete edit logs, like a certain insecure CP admin I could mention... 03:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to point out that in your need to feud with me, you may have missed that I didn't try to ban you. Like, I didn't even try to block you. At all, ever. 03:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have never seen you attempt to argue a position relating to irreligion/religion/politics/etc. I doubt I ever will. Your modus operandi is to erase. Your modus operandi is to put people in vandal bins who are not vandalizing. You can deny this, but you are not fooling anyone except for the very gullible. Margon282 (talk) 04:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ken, if you try to edit here again under a different account after you have been permabanned, your new account will also immediately get blocked for ban evasion. It's not as if you'll be difficult to spot. You won't even try to hide who you are. But even if you did try, your writing style would give you away immediately/ The only danger is somebody pretending to be you to take the piss out of you might get blocked as well, since the two are completely indistinguishable. Spud (talk) 05:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry if you're uncomfortable with Grammarcommie removing your edits and banning you. I'll be more than happy if you want me removing them and banning you instead. Anyway, consider my removing your comments in the future a form of response rather than ignoring and censoring! You can pretend I said something along the lines of "I'm a stupid weird gay atheist authoritarian" too. Unlike others, luckily, I have no intentions doing anything else with you aside removing your further responses and banning you assuming the coop succeeds. 09:29, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't block or ban him. Not even once. So sayeth the logs. 13:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh well I'll take up the mantle. 18:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Just wanna point out that Margon282 is blocked for 22 days (by yours truly) since they're a sock of Piano, and Piano is at the time of writing blocked for the same length, so don't expect a response (unless you unblock Piano lol). 18:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion
This page should be called "The cock fighting ring" because it becomes a blood sport at times. Conspirate (talk) 05:05, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You did not read or understand, "As a final note, if you think this page is a good tactic to apply in gaming the mob into doing your bidding, you may be shocked to see your post archived quite swiftly." Bongolian (talk) 17:09, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

HCM level
I don’t want to be that guy stirring the pot, but isn’t this HCM 0 at this point? Drama on several pages, no one even knows what they’re fighting about, policy changes are being debated along with the legitimacy of several users’ assignment of rights... Sounds like the description of HCM 0. Fawcett (talk) 23:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No way - not even HCM 1. This is nothing. AceModerator 00:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * HCM zero to me was best exemplified by ADK's decratting everyone and Nx desysopping everyone. A fundamental upheaval of the site's structure--Hastur! (talk)  00:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That's kind of my point though. Appointment of user rights is being discussed right now, which is really a change of the site's structure and isn't far off from what happened with the last HCM 0, as I understand it. Perhaps we're not QUITE where we were then, but it seems pretty close. Forgive me for being naive, I wasn't around back then. I could see Oxy stripping everybody else's rights if she somehow got access to an account with tech rights or moderator rights just to get back at everybody (again, I'm being serious, not poking fun, which is sometimes hard to tell on the net). Fawcett (talk) 01:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This particular incident is barely level 1, as Ace notes above. There have been much bigger dumpster fires here that didn't burn out after a day or two like this one did. Cosmikdebris (talk) 01:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not really dead yet though. Fawcett (talk) 02:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah it's dead. I've been on RW almost continually for 12 years and this is nothing compared to some of the other HCM's I have endured. AceModerator 03:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I had tech for over a year, and I never saw fit to desysop and demod everyone. You all have the wrong idea about me, and I have been treated very unfairly by this wiki. — Oxyaena Harass  03:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You absolutely have been treated fairly. You’re abusive, block heavy based on your feelings, continually LANCB, create drama every where you turn and then have the gall to say you’re being treated unfairly. You really, REALLY, need to do a lot of self reflection. AceModerator 10:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You have a terrible attitude and no friends. Please treat his as a learning experience, for your own good--Hastur! (talk)  16:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , do not turn this into a personal attack ("no friends"). I'm aware that you've had a rather troubled history here. Bongolian (talk) 17:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Going back on topic, I was reading about “The Great Pissing Contest” and honestly what was so much “greater” about that than this? Fawcett (talk) 09:42, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

After reading the HCM article, isn't HCM Level 2 better suited for this situation than HCM level 3? Thunderclapper (talk) 13:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I can't defend myself in the coop
Because I have been censored and my vote was removed. That's vote tampering. GR (talk) 23:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen you do anything that constitutes defending yourself--Hastur! (talk) 23:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Well this is what constitutes judge, jury and executioner. GR (talk) 23:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * LGM protected the coop, and I would personally take her advice and take some time to calm down. Soundwave106 (talk) 23:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Through a quick ban, I told you to stop reinstating your vote after I've been removing yours. You know I'm a mod, you should at least respect that decision. But you didn't. 23:29, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't throw in a vote, what gives? — Oxyaena Harass  00:23, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Raven added a vote. I removed it. He readded it. I removed it. I told him to stop it or else I'll sysoprevoke and protect to sysop-only. He readded it. I guess I'll unlock the page though, since it seemed to have fizzled out anyhow; you're the second user to notice the page lock. Do not disappoint me, editors. 00:25, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should allow him to keep the vote, just to show those defending him who exactly they are defending.-Flandres (talk) 00:29, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think they're defending him per se. It's more they feel a certain way about bans, and also that they might think he can be reformed after a painful amount of talking to. Personally, I feel like shaming people for voting their conscience sets a bad precedent. 00:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * When you put it that way, I can understand where you are coming from.-Flandres (talk) 00:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Agree. I understand their position too. They have some goodwill in that he'll improve and don't want to set precedent for indef bans for people we don't like. I don't entirely agree in that assessment, namely that I don't think Raven will improve, but I do agree with the spirit of it. If that makes any sense. 00:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, I understand. Note that IRL even those close to me say I am rather ruthless as a person, so I generally feel less averse to emotionally painful last resorts like coop cases or long bans(just to clear up things both here and for future reference). I do understand I do not think like other people and they have a right to their beliefs.-Flandres (talk) 00:48, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with LeftGreenMario's assessment. Shabi  DOO  00:51, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal(I think this is the right place to put it)
After sifting through the archives, focusing on cases that came to a vote, I think the coop would benefit from a two round voting system. The first options would be permaban, temp ban(without specifying length just yet), and no ban. If temp ban wins, then a second vote is held between various lengths of banning(one week, three months, so on). My hope is that no opinion is outright discarded in the second round so a very close and contentious case can have a resolution that still reflects a firm majority. For instance, if temp ban won but a large amount of users felt the user in question did not deserve it they can still vote for the shortest possible ban in the second round, thus their views are not just voided instantly because an option won by one vote.-Flandres (talk) 21:51, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm... Interesting. 21:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

The right place to put this would be the talk page of RationalWiki:Community Standards.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's true for general changes. But if Flandres or anyone else wants to try to go this route for this particular coop, I don't see why not. Bongolian (talk) 16:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * So the first round renders a guilty as charged or not guilty verdict, and the second round a sentencing phase? nobsSmile, and be friends.. 01:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No we should vote for everything yes/no and all penalties that pass (ban by 66% margin all others by 50% margin) are applied. If more than one pass then each one that passes is applied. Shabi  DOO  02:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Given the time constraints on voting, my previous suggestion was not well thought-out. Bongolian (talk) 02:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Flandres. It is a good suggestion.S&#39;chn T&#39;gai Spock (talk) 07:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion 'the next'
Clicking on Recent Changes - last 500 edits' shows some 190 of said edits being made (probably more when I save this entry).

When there is such a flurry could there be a 'fox in the chicken coop pause' (whatever the cause of the disagreement). Anna Livia (talk) 19:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It is better to let things play out. Otherwise resentments will build up and constructive corrections will not happen.S&#39;chn T&#39;gai Spock (talk) 07:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

May I suggest a Mega Chicken Coop?
I suggest having a mega Chicken Coop? The site keeps descending further and further into madness and acrimony. It's time to permaban all existing users and start from scratch.Traverse (talk) 09:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Retiring the coop
I think the community showed many times now that we can handle problems without going into HCM. I think we can archive this page and further sanctions can be voted on ATIM. GeeJayK (talk) 12:49, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Nah, keep it--Spoony (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Neutral - The last coop we had, 131, was held back in December. Before that, it was 130, which was back in August. So, since August 26, only one coop in 238 days. Meanwhile, several key penalty votes did take place in ATIM. Obviously ibans and lesser sanctions do still belong at ATIM, but I count 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 discussions that really could've been held at a coop but weren't (and this doesn't factor in iban, tban proposals that could've been a coop), which would render it impractical. The coop does tend to work better in controversial disputes but it seems we haven't had that in a while. The coop has some uses, but it wasn't used in a while. Iwouldn't really mind either way. --Andrew5 (talk) 13:12, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand where you are coming from, but some months of tranquillity is not necessarily a good reason to archive the coop. HCM is always a possibility just around the corner. Shabi  DOO  13:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There may be a misunderstanding here. If I remember correctly the Chicken Coop is for the community to try to resolve problems.  The Mods really should only be involved if the community can't sort it out.
 * That really makes ATIM the "higher court". In practice I accept that the two pages fulfill a similar role as users tend to take problems to one or the other depending on their understanding.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:20, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There are a few things contributing to the lack of activity. First of all is Scrooge abusing the coop in RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive125 and RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive126. Also, these things tend to have people complain at ATIM first, where it moves to Coop. But people now would rather it stay at ATIM. Also, Coops became more serious. I can tell Plutocow would much rather prefer to use ATIM, Techpriest prefers to use the Coop. It's kind of a personal preference. We might want to codify where one should be used over another in the CS. --Andrew5 (talk) 17:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Having the coop and ATiM both as dispute resolution forums defeats the original purpose of the coop (as I understand it to be anyway, perhaps some old guard like or  could weigh in on this?). As I understand anyway, HCMs used to spread like a forest fire, so the coop was created so people could fight to the death like a bunch of chickens in cock fighting ring. Now discussions take place on ATiM and sometimes are moved here and sometimes not, splitting up disciplinary discussions (like the on-going discussion of 2friedeggs and Plutocow) between two pages. The coop is an obsolete relic of the old guard days and should be mothballed with a banner explaining the situation and the coop's role officially moved to ATiM. 71.208.x.x (talk) 01:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * We should start a vote. --Andrew5 (talk) 21:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I feel like such a vote, if it is even necessary in the first place, would be better off in CS. Plutocow (talk) 21:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The coop is fine as is. The idea behind the coop is that it's for cases where there's sufficient degrees of drama that a mod can't simply resolve it by yelling at one of the parties involved to stop being a dumbass (that one is what ATIM is for). I do think that we need to probably at least establish a process for porting stuff more to the coop; the current situation between 2friedeggs and Pluto is a good example of something that really oughta be moved to the Coop but I don't want to do that because it resets vote timers even though the case has been for way over a day in ATIM by that point. -- Techpriest (talk) 22:46, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think GeeJayK was saying that that is the reason why the coop is an unnecessary duplicate. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with Techpriest on this. The purpose of starting things off in the mod noticeboard is to try to resolve things quickly, possibly without a vote. That leaves the coop for cases that can't be simply resolved. In the past, there were exceptionally long disputes in the coop that frayed nerves and cause quality editors to leave because of the drama. Bongolian (talk) 23:48, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This whole thread is stupid. Andrew is stupid. Archive this vomit. 23:52, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Yep

 * 1) —cosmikdebris talk stalk 00:24, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) This thread is stupid. 00:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) What Duce said. 01:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) Bongolian (talk) 02:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) It was never worth it in the first place. 04:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 6) Spud (talk) 04:23, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 7) 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒   talk  04:26, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 8) Scream!! (talk) 12:16, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 9) -- Techpriest (talk) 15:55, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 10) Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:56, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 11) Commit it to the flames: for it contains nothing but sophistry and illusion.  Leucippus Salva veritate 23:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Nope

 * No, we should archive the coop. 71.208.x.x (talk) 13:26, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Why? 18:21, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "It has been 121 days since the last squabble." LOL at that poppycock 71.208.x.x (talk) 21:40, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * And the coop has been in use for 13 years. In the life of the wiki 121 days is a blink.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:23, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That is a terrible reason to mothball the Coop. Have you not heard of redundancy? 23:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) If you don't think the Coop should be archived, that should be debated, not just archived. Trying to archive it solely because I am proposing a vote, especially because I didn't even start the thread. Some of GC's arguments were ad hominem, such as "Andrew is stupid." Not ad hom, as I realized, just rude. It's honestly a bit upsetting. --Andrew5 (talk) 23:18, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You need to learn to read the room. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒  talk  00:09, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not easy to read the room over internet. I can;t see your facial expressions. --Andrew5 (talk) 00:52, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Goat

 * One-sidedness aside, I feel like such a vote should be on the Moderator board or elsewhere. And that it should be a lot more broadly advertised.
 * 'Cause TBQH, I had no idea this vote was even happening. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 01:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, just realized the vote was for this thread, not the COOP. I blame it being Sunday night. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 01:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Why has there been a dramatic rise in chicken coops beginning in 2018?
I looked at the Chicken Coop archive list. There has been a large rise in the number of Chicken Coops since the year 2018. Why is this happening? &mdash; Unsigned, by: TommyG / talk / contribs 09:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * People losing their shit at each other more leads to people using the Coop more. Outside of that; occasionally we get driveby editors posting very passionate coops about shit that is already resolvable on talkpages or doesn't need much discussion which leads to a bloated archive count. 11:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Why is there more disputes between RationalWiki editors since 2018? TommyG (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Bear in mind a fair amount of these coops go nowhere (no penalty votes and such). The number of archived cases is not the same as the number of serious cases.-Flandres (talk) 15:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There seems to be more hostility between RationalWiki editors since 2018. I was wondering why this is the case.TommyG (talk) 15:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Is there really more hostility though? I just told you you are basing your conclusion off faulty data. Heck, given that in older times "one archive" didn't even equal "one case" like it does now, you're basing this off of...nothing, really.-Flandres (talk) 16:20, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hardly. RW editors have always quarreled and fought. This probably stems from there being an abundance contentious topics of discussion which parties feel strongly about.  16:22, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * From the beginning of RW in its present form there were endless battles about just about everything. And those fights were often a lot worse then anything seen in the last few years. What has changed is a desire to bring such fights to the coop.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:34, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Go JAQ off somewhere else. We all know your thesis: that our site is just so awful and filled with such discord and strife, caused by a select group of individuals we've already heard far too much about. IveBeenFrank (talk) 18:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has much more international editor base. And despite having people from a wider variety of cultures, it has less contention than RationalWiki.


 * In addition, RationalWiki enforces secular, leftist groupthink more. Wikipedia offers a freer editing experience.TommyG (talk) 18:54, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There certainly has recently been a large rise in the amount of brand new accounts, most likely too chickenshit to troll Rationalwiki under their prior handles (or maybe it's someone banned in a prior coop, who knows), moaning about the past for reason. Someone be mad. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia is more civil" I can't even.... Every time I go to a Wikipedia page on a controversial (or "controversial) topic, it's either full of passive agression or just plain aggression. Given our bread and butter articles are contentious topics, one might think that this might cause... contention... 19:25, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If RationalWiki tries to ban the world in order to enforce secular, leftists groupthink, of course there is going to be more new accounts and more trolling as well.


 * If RationalWiki's bread and bread butter topics are contentious topics, perhaps it is attracting a more contentious editor base. I am seeing more coop cases than what previously occurred.TommyG (talk) 19:32, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You're just iterating what has been said and addressed. Actually counter the argument or stop being so disingenuous. 20:02, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a troll, so this person won't stop. I predict some moan about the decline of atheism or something from this account in the future. They should just give up and go to Conservapedia for the religious right-wing groupthink nonsense they want. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no doubt that sometime soon conservapedia is going have an “essay” about “atheism and the chicken coop at a certain site beginning with R”. Ace//about blank 20:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

In 2018, RationalWiki appears to have had 300% more web traffic than in 2020. And yet, in 2018 there are 17 Chicken Coop archive pages and in 2020 there are 22 archived Chicken Coop cases.

RationalWikians are spending more time pecking at fellow editors in its Chicken Coops. The audience for these Chicken Coops is much smaller though.TommyG (talk) 21:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Now, I agree when that USHistoryAnalyzer troll tries to start a coop against Plutocow simply because their edits were reverted on the basis that they weren't very good, imagine that level of pettiness, I would not start a coop against someone else here just because they are being annoying. Otherwise, the coop against Ace was completely justified, he is toxic. Ace better be gone by the time the mods elections come. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 00:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sigh, save this spat about Ace for another time, and do not feed the troll here. 00:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Ken. 00:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * How would I know he was Ken Dolls? He is far more subtle than Michael Coombs. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 00:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * - I better be gone by the time the mod elections happen. Hey... fuck you pal. I ain’t going anywhere. Asshole. Ace//about blank 03:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that comment against Ace was bad, as was the coop that led to it. 03:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Spare me the hysterics, Leucippus
How the fuck are Ace and HBC productive? Compare their edits with my edits for one. I think you'll notice a marked distinction between Ace and HBC, who mostly troll talk pages, and my edits, which are overall at least partially constructive. When was the last time HBC edited WIGO, the Annotated Bible, or mainspace? Same goes for Ace. Menace (talk) 18:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Your account has three edits, who are you? Christopher (talk) 18:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Isn't it obvious?-Flandres (talk) 18:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Low quality bait; the last time HBC edited the main WIGO was March 30. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 18:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Could be multiple people, but given that the user seems to dislike "liberal centrists", the timing of their account creation, and their first edit, well...CorSock (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I love how you all ignore the fact that I was the one who promoted myself from tech in the first place, and yet HBC gets lauded for "integrity" for promoting themselves when it was probably gonna happen anyhow. Menace (talk) 08:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Anti-LGBT Commentary on the South Park Page
Moved to: Talk:South Park