RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive51

Should Plutoniumboss continue to have sysop rights?
I am just putting this out here, I am sure more than one user can air their grievances on this specific user. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost)))  (talk) 19:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * GOD DAMMIT LAUROGEITA we were so close to having 30 consecutive days without a Coop.--JorisEnter (talk) 19:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, I intended to do this coop before Plutoniumboss becomes entirely unhinged (which he seems to have been in the past, judging by his talk page) another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost)))  (talk) 19:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * won't come back until we (i.e., RW) can do 30 days without a ooop.--JorisEnter (talk) 19:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Couldn't you have told me that in advance? Now it's too late. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost)))  (talk) 19:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I wasn't exactly expecting you to coop him.--JorisEnter (talk) 19:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You don't "pre-emtively coop" people, Laurogeita. Innocent until proven guilty, and him being a grumpy dick on talkpages isn't coopable by a longshot (it's even a positive development that he's settled for doing that, considering we're talking about a fairly capable edit warrior who has earned binnings in the past). I mean, the guy's not even blocked at the moment - what's the basis for a coop case? You don't take people's sysop tools away because you disagree with them (however rightfully), you do it because they misuse said tools. Now, could we just undo this whole thing and keep counting towards day 30? If not... Fuck. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, we previously made it to 29 1/2 days - before being interrupted by a similarly silly coop.--JorisEnter (talk) 19:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Holy christmas jew that's annoying. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:48, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, as far as I can see Plutoniumbs hasn't done anything yet that merits demopping.--JorisEnter (talk) 19:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Review of David Gerard sysoprevokeing and vandal binning Plutoniumboss
Agree, disagree? Objective (talk) 03:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * To clarify, we are determining whether David's moderator actions should be up for review, and not instantly deciding whether he was right or wrong per se. Objective (talk) 04:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree on reviewing DG's actions

 * 1) Plutoniumboss was an editor of RW for almost a year. Revoking his sysop-rights and placing him in the vandal bin has to be decided by the mob.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 04:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC) 04:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Agree, we need a review.Objective (talk) 04:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) what was Gerard's reasoning? Acei9 04:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) This action needs to be discussed by the community.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) "Any action that will be permanent or long term, such as rights removal, blocking or censure, should still be handled by the larger community." -- 11:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) Of course the mob can review mod actions, and decide whether Plutoniumboss should be given tools above the level of plastic scissors - David Gerard (talk) 12:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) It's hard to argue with Iscariot's quote from the rules. Which is why I'm not arguing with it. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 8) Really, he handled this as he should and yet gets a barge load of crap dumped on him, yet still shovels his way through. He should be made employee of the month and given a 10% pay raise.  Also, I vote that if "Sysop" is a mop, "Moderator" is a spading fork (the kind ranchers use for bullshit). StickySock (talk) 16:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Disagree on reviewing DG's actions

 * 1) This action does not merit Coop discussion. Two points. 1: PB has been a bad editor for all of that year. For proof, see: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:UserRights/Plutoniumboss. Paravant wrote twice in 2015: I see your name and "not good" and "undid revision" far to much for you to be autopatrolled. He's constantly needed rollbacks and copyedits and the whole schabang -- much like Proxima. There are clear grounds for DG's actions -- historically supported by multiple other mods -- and as such his motives need not be questioned. 2: The Saloon Bar thread (RationalWiki:Saloon_bar) seems sufficient. 04:39, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This is pretty much the reasoning. The guy has been a fucking drain to deal with for over a year now. Just because he can manage spelling and grammar doesn't make him not a huge net negative. So I finally got the mod jackboots on about him. If the mob decide his work is just lovely, they can fucking have him, but this is actually a mod's thing to do - David Gerard (talk) 06:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * For reference, I was about to do exactly what David did, but DG was 10 minutes faster. 06:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Another fuck up brought to us by Mona. Hipocrite (talk) 11:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I must note that I'm totally on board with mob review of mod actions as a principle - David Gerard (talk) 12:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) I see no reason to question. --Castaigne2 (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) If you want to review the actions, fucking do so. There's no committee on appropriate mod behavior, and if there's something that stands out to you as a problem, bring that to the table and we'll discuss it.  What you have here is an asinine attempt to conflate mod misbehavior with the theoretical idea of holding mods accountable.  You already can and should do that.  Pointless waste of a coop.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Goat

 * I have the same question as Ace.- 04:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * FCP has it about right - David Gerard (talk) 06:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hang on, wait up - so the deal is that this guy has been doing bad stuff, right? And being a sysop means that he can block cunts and that, yeah? And by doing that vandal thing, it just means that he has to wait like 30 minutes before he can do something? And the guy who did the stuff is some kinda big boss? So, I mean, I don't know if I'm missing something here, but if he's been doing bad stuff, then he probably shouldn't have been given the sysop thing in the first place, which means that taking the stuff off him isn't a major deal. Also, what's the problem with, like, slowing him down? Is there some deeper symbolic meaning to it? Also, aren't the moderators supposed to do that? I'm not raising any stakes in the argument, just tryna figure out how this stuff works, because it seems to be different to any other web forum place I've been on. I have no idea who any of these guys are or anything such as that. Petrichor (talk) 11:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * He was given ops by someone who later earned a deopping for abuse of their op powers. At least two of us mods thought this was literally the sort of thing mods were here for - David Gerard (talk) 11:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * So some guy was like "you can do all this stuff now", and then everyone was like "stop that" and that's how this Plutonium guy was allowed to use the stuff? So nobody thought it was a good idea except some guy who didn't know what they were doing or what? Petrichor (talk) 12:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If the question is "Could we in principle review the actions of an elected moderator (without implying his actions were right or wrong)?", then: Certainly. If the question is, "Should the abrasive muppet known as Plutoniumboss be entrusted with sysop tools and be left out of the vandal bin?", then: Are you fucking kidding me? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposal for voting
Since David is okay with his actions being reviewed, should we go ahead and bring up the actions for a somewhat formal vote (and acknowledging there has been discussion going on in WIGO). Perhaps, we can consider compromise sanctions (including staying in sysoprevoke, leaving vandal bin, and leaving autopatrolled group - but not mucking around with autoconfirmed status - if you even can technically do that - I know you can on Wikipedia). Objective (talk) 14:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 14:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC) 14:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Laurogeita Hamabost
I'm increasingly convinced this is the latest iteration of Avengerofthe BoN/Pizzameister. Check the editing dates, topics & general pattern of shit-stirring. Currently he/she is edit-warring hard at the Nikola Tesla article to keep in eir embarrassing assertion that "we" tell people who have opinions on Tesla's ethnic background to fuck off & get a life. 22:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope, too intelligent. Plutoniumboss (talk) 00:35, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * For the record I am happy to accept this compromise proposal. Are you? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost)))  (talk) 22:29, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I gotta tell you, Skip... I'm not a fan of this edit at all. For all the talk of how "pointless" that Serb-Croat kerfuffle is, you seem rather worked up over it yourself (based on your suggestion that people "fuck off" from the site — which really isn't cool to insert into a mainspace article anyways). Just my two cents. That being said, I do recognize that you accept Krej's "Executive Decision", and I'm glad that you do. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you want Balkan nationalists to shit all over the wiki? I think "fuck off" is actually a nice way to tell them what we think of them. This wiki is rather firmly anti- nationalist pseudohistory, isn't it? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost)))  (talk) 23:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Now, you know that I'm not your enemy or "out to get you" in any way. We've had many constructive interactions as the backdrop to what I said, and your reply to it (here given right above) and indeed as the backdrop for what I'm about to say. Please allow me to be frank.


 * First of all, that's a pretty hostile false dilemma you just offered up; either I retract my dislike of your initial edit, or I want the terrorists to win "Balkan nationalists to shit all over the wiki"? That's already an offensively dumb thing to ask a concerned well-wisher; a criticism that is literally directed at what "I want" to happen. An indictment of my very character and motives, in other words.


 * Secondly, our mission statement reads (among other things): "We welcome contributors, and encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue.". I don't see how you can square that with what you decided to insert.


 * Thirdly, of course we're against things like nationalist pseudohistory. Which is really why, when other editors — Krej, me, Weasel, Castaigne (etc) — express their dislike of the precise hostile insertion you made, you may at the very least abandon the hypothesis that we all contest you for the reason of "not sharing your view" on the respectability of nationalist pseudohistory.


 * I would also have hoped that you would have given me some credit for recognizing that you agreed with Krej. Please be more thoughtful, as I hope it's plain enough to see that I'm not your enemy. I'm just appalled by that one exact edit you made, and I'm not exactly alone in that. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well I think telling them to fuck off is okay. But we can disagree on that. Because if we "invite" them, we also invite their ridiculous fights which have made Wikipedia much less pleasant. I am sorry if my comments came of as too aggressive or intent on insulting you. I did not intend such a thing and should probably have used other words. At any rate, there seem to be three or more rather than two sides to this. Some want to insist on him being a Croat of Serb origin or something and some don't want something as irrelevant as that to be cause for edit wars. I seem to be alone in my desire to tell Balkan nationalists to fuck of. Fair enough. At any rate, please do accept my apology, Reverend Black Percy. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost)))  (talk) 00:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted, buddy. For now, let's just all agree on Krej's "Executive Decision", allright? Trust me, if a wave of Balkan nationalists were to show up and harass the site, we'll be ready to take the necessary steps (such as locking the Tesla page, if need be). We have moderators in place to deal with that scenario, too. Don't worry — you know as well as anyone that my goal is to maintain a pleasant atmosphere at this site. Trust me on this and relax. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay. So that's settled then. I hope. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost)))   (talk) 00:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * As do I. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

It isnt just questionable edits though is it. Its blocking someone after 2 not at all egregious edits with a spurious claim of serb nationalism. This is poor judgement at best. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Joris Enter is far worse, but he's favored by the heavier bullies so he can do whatever he wants. Conscience (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Whenever someone uses block and vandal bin rights more stringently or arbitrarily than Wikipedia, this is cause for concern. I'm not advocating bringing a coop case on one 9 hour block, but in general abuse of Sysop rights - especially against the defenseless (non sysoped people - people who don't know how to appeal to the chicken coop etc.) should be discouraged. Conservapedia is dead now, but we don't need a bunch of Conservapedia like administrators here who want to abuse their power just because admin rights are given quite freely here and they can't abuse their power at some other wiki. Objective (talk) 17:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The more I look over the background to this, the more I think we've already got them in moderator form. -- 17:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Where's that good post template? Hipocrite (talk) 18:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

My goodness, I never realized it up until now. The signature is mocking anti-Semitism, just like Avenger would do. Also, this user is a dick, just like Avenger. It's all falling into place now. 17:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I fail to see what the actual case is beyond some edit warring (oh noez!) and some rather tenuous speculation about a possible sock. Move on. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * lau dared to be cooped. He got cooped. I dont believe any party believed anything would come of it. Despite appearances, few here are that delusional. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I wanted it over with, instead of griping and sniping from the sidelines for months, just air the grievances (of which some are resolved, some are justified and some are not) and be done with it. If there is something else to discuss, I am open to it. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost)))  (talk) 18:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * and as with all coops nothing is learned. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "Just air the grievances" (I'm sorry, I had to) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Archived
Using my !!ABUSIVE MOD POWERS!! to archive shitheap that's growing without direction (sorry Weasel). 17:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Plutoniumboss sanctions voting
I attempt to rank these sanctions from greatest severity to least severity in one dimension. I would propose that wherever the median vote is on the severity scale is the action that should be taken. Objective (talk) 14:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Why the fuck do we have to have 6 different options on what is done? It used to be "Should this get smacked? Yes or no." and a mod makes what they think is the appropriate punishment. Instead of that simple expedient, it's multiple choice with nigh-on weeks of argument about what should constitute a fucking majority. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * ^ This. I suggest we vote on the current punishment (i.e., demop & bin).--JorisEnter (talk) 15:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it needs to be two votes. Two actions were taken. Objective (talk) 15:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Why? Again, if we cannot rely on the discretion of mods, then mods need to be stripped of that power unilaterally. The only question the mob needs to answer is whether or not the subject of the coop needs to be punished. What punishment is issued should be at the mod's discretion.
 * And if mods shouldn't have that discretion, then they should be stripped of those powers. --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I should also note that I will vote "no punishment" until this nonsense consensus bullshit is done away with. --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Vote /= consensus Conscience (talk) 14:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * TLDR, coop these fucking days seems to operate like some circle-jerk "unanimous consensus required" crap like what has fucked anarchists and Rainbow Gatherings into a cocked hat. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * More ominously, Citizendium! Plutoniumboss (talk) 23:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Merge the vote
It would appear that Plutoniumboss thinks, quote: "I can't really find fault in (DG's) reasoning to bin me". Assuming Plutonium and a moderator are both in agreement on the decision to bin Plutonium, having the mob vote on the fact of the binning becomes pointless. Even if it was just a toxic remark on Plutoniumboss' part, I'm sure s/he will correct any possible misunderstanding about this with yet another toxic remark. So, until then, we ought to take Plutonium's word for it, and make the vote simply on the presence or absence of a mop. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * yet another toxic remark. We're all about building bridges here. Plutoniumboss (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I said "even if it was just a toxic remark", giving you the benefit of the doubt. Further, having mentioned the concept once, saying "yet another" still doesn't imply that one had been made by you in the first place (as the stipulation "even if" laid on the first mention). I apologize if that was in any way unclear. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright. Plutoniumboss (talk) 22:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The case for Plutoniumboss
Plutoniumboss is a sincere contributor. He really wants to be here and add stuff to the wiki. He can spell accurately and his grammar is correct! That's well ahead of quite a few people who come here - David Gerard (talk) 15:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This wiki is lucky to have Gerard. Although we have our disagreements, I can't really find fault in his reasoning to bin me.  Plutoniumboss (talk) 20:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Whenever I know recent changes, I always see a lot if Plutoniumboss edits, and they're always big and add lots of content. That's a good thing. 17:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The case against Plutoniumboss
He is a horrendously terrible writer. Never use one word when three sentences will do. Add 2000 characters of bloggy rambling to an article. Add paragraphs of humour-free "snark" to an article. Get basic checkable facts wrong in the process.

Many editors have had to revert him shitting up articles. It is a tiresome process.

If he at least kept it to essay space I could leave him to it. But.

First time I binned him was because he'd progressed from shitting up articles by editing to shitting up articles by bot. Yeah, no.

In conclusion, I don't want to ban him utterly, but keeping him to one thoughtful edit every 30 minutes can only improve the content and will at least keep the firehose of shite manageable. - David Gerard (talk) 15:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * (Why didn't I think of that? Watch out, Rob, someone's coming for your crown.) Plutoniumboss (talk) 20:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes

 * 1) David Gerard (talk) 15:47, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Has been edit warring way too much with lots and lots of crappy edits.--JorisEnter (talk) 16:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Bin subject to an automatic expiration date / and or later appraisal of effectiveness and reformation another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost)))   (talk) 17:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Lord Aeonian (talk) 18:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) To me, it's less about the crappiness of the edits and more about the constant edit warring, the demonstrative deprotection of protected pages and the outright threats left on people's talkpages. All of this salted with the overall abusiveness and mean spirit of this particular editor. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Did I rudely disagree with people? Yes.  Did I use strong language?  Hell, yes.  Did I threaten?  How much danger do I reasonably pose when anyone, literally anyone (Proxima!) has a mop and can un-bin themselves at the drop of a hat?
 * This began last summer, when I decided to shape the 2016 Election articles and guide them towards where I wanted them to go. My fears were confirmed as of February when the edits started to balloon. Despite the obscene number of edits, these are still niche articles so it's very difficult to get a consensus on anything. This, in turn, encourages Draconian editing practices.  Ultimately it came down to Percy "I'm just going to lay low regarding the whole election" Black as the deciding vote.  And he's always voted in favor of moar content. In practical terms, the result was a Canadian bigmouth telling everyone to behave and blocking my attempts at trimming them down.
 * I think I'm just going to have to accept that I and certain editors have a different approach. Some editors treat the wiki as a nursery, almost (you're all special), caring more about tranquility and collaboration than the spirit of the edit (it doesn't matter who started it!). The result is a tumorous series of articles where one paragraph directly contradicts another, because no one is allowed to be wrong. Alas I lack the persuasive powers to convince him otherwise. Maybe things will quiet down after November and they'll reach a consensus, or maybe we won't. (After all, some talk pages have been deadlocked for years.) Plutoniumboss (talk) 20:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Nerd271 (talk) 23:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

No

 * 1) --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Good faith crappy editing is not vandalism.  Plutonium boss hasn't even edited since sanctions were taken. Also to my knowledge, PB has not been an ordinary, but promoted, user for some time.  Try leaving him off autopatrolled status.  To my knowledge, that should prevent bot editing.  Objective (talk) 16:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Bullies. Conscience (talk) 17:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) AMassiveGay (talk) 17:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) We put up with Proxima Centuri for years who did the exact same thing and s/he was never binned or demopped. Acei9 20:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That sounds like an excellent proposal next time she goes off on one. I don't think she ever pulled out a bot, though - David Gerard (talk) 22:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sceptical of the suggestion that two wrongs somehow make a right. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If you're fed up with Proxima, you have every right to coop her as well. This coop is about the behaviour of Plutoniumboss, though - base your vote on his behaviour, rather than that of another user.--JorisEnter (talk) 23:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) --The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 21:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC) 21:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 02:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * DavidGerardWiki Conscience (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC)–
 * You can't vote twice, this isn't Chicago. 16:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Based on moderator conduct. -- 17:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) I hope PlutoniumBoss takes this as a stern finger wagging and starts to think a bit more about his/her edits, perhaps using talk pages and/or user page sandboxes for suggestions/drafts. If quality does not improve, I'll be willing to demop and deautopatrol to slow PB down a bit, but not so drastically as with the bin. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Goat

 * I think the reasoning here is pushing it though any use of botting needs enough of a slap on the wrist to never do it again without having wide consent. But locked in the bin forever  for being "eh, kinda crappy" editing seems excessive.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Is there a possibility to make the time of the bin different? For example one edit every fifteen or ten minutes? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost)))  (talk) 17:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Removal of autopatrol gets it to once every 30 seconds with CAPTCHA required. Objective (talk) 17:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thirty seconds is almost indistinguishable from no limit. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost)))  (talk) 17:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * But the CAPTCHAs are completely miserable. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a good point. Lord Aeonian (talk) 18:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Autoconfirmed editors are also exempt from CAPTCHA & rate limits, & I think that's everyone with more than a certain threshold of edits regardless of whether they're autopatrolled. See Special:ListGroupRights.  07:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes

 * 1) Yep.  Not-insane test may have been failed.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Sure.  Several respected moderators and editors who have been monitoring this situation for a much longer time have raised valid concerns about PlutoniumBoss.  Competency, or at least enough competency to show sanity, is required for the mop. Objective (talk) 16:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Sysoprevoke is certainly called for. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost)))   (talk) 17:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * God, these nonsensical multiple choice votes are a ***** nightmare. So I can vote yes here too? Or what? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:10, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Nerd271 (talk) 12:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

No

 * 1) --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Bullies. Conscience (talk) 17:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Who is bullying whom how? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost)))  (talk) 17:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) --The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 21:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC) 21:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 02:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) AMassiveGay (talk) 20:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Based on moderator conduct. -- 17:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes

 * 1) Resoundingly. Give him the red exclamation point. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost)))  (talk) 18:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Sure. Objective (talk) 21:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Nerd271 (talk) 23:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * God, these nonsensical multiple choice votes are a ***** nightmare. So I can vote yes here too? Or what? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

No

 * 1) --The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 21:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC) 21:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 02:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Jesus fuck you people are vicious. Conscience (talk) 15:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Based on moderator conduct. -- 17:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Goat

 * This does not work. Sysops are automatically auto-patrolled. Hipocrite (talk) 19:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes and once we take away sysop, we can take away autopatrolled as well. Savvy? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost)))  (talk) 20:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "Hey, let's make longtime users type a silly code into a box to slow down their editing. Why? We don't like their editing!" 17:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Can this be closed?
If so, demop wins. (This assumes all demop+binners also vote demop, which gives 7 unique votes; conversely, no-demop has merely 6 unique votes (since Objective switched sides).) 20:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * the no camp wins in both sections so demop wins? Thats some twisting of the result. Guess we really hate this pb chap. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

At the very least, it looks like Vandal binning lost. I'm going to un-bin, unless a moderator wants to revert. Objective (talk) 21:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)


 * (EC) These multiple simultaneous votes are always a clusterfuck. 7 vs 6 based on the "assuming" counting method doesn't sound like a conclusive result. Let it sit a while longer & see if things get any clearer.  If they don't I recommend writing it off a waste of time & getting on with our lives as per most recent coop cases.  21:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Hey, I remember someone else saying that these multiple simultaneous votes were problematic. Who was that person.... Hipocrite (talk) 18:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * At the very least Plutoniumboss should see that he is very close to being binned and the patience of those that had to deal with his crap is wearing thin. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost)))  (talk) 21:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The patience of those dealing with your crap is also wearing pretty thin. 21:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Start a coop case against me now, or shut the hell up. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost)))  (talk) 22:07, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure thing bub. 22:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

What a brilliant idea FCP(!) What the fuck it is with you and expecting everyone to be present immediately for your convienence? You archive the previous discussion, that actually had the relevant links in less than 14 hours and you want to call this in less than 48 hours? FFS! -- 17:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, Iscariot you are hardly the poster child for reasonable, not to mention calm or constructive, additions to these threads... I don't really see the logic in your apparent equation "DG is behaving dickishly so I'll not even consider if the case has merit". DG being an ass doesn't mean that there isn't a problem with PB delivering too few quality edits in too great a quantity.
 * That said, I do agree with those who complain about way too many options for sanctions here. Start with sanction/no sanction, then go down the scale to demop (y/n), and only if yes consider additional sanction that require demopping to be feasible (binning/deautopatrol). ScepticWombat (talk) 18:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

This case is nowhere near resolved. Even if we were to close it now, how the hell does demop win? More ratfuckery from FuzzyCatPotato. 18:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * There are only six votes no against demop only and more than six unique votes for demop. IMO, everyone just chill out for a week or two and, due to the close vote for demopping of PB and due to PB's recent good behavior, we bring up a vote to remove sysoprevoke for PB. Objective (talk) 14:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

A proposal
I've given Plutoniumboss autopatrolled. The vote on demop/demop&bin is unclear -- and isn't overwhelming in either direction. A proposal:


 * Keep PB sysoprevoked but autopatrolled and unbinned for a month.
 * After the month, PB can list their good edits and ask a mod (or the coop) to remove sysoprevoke

Since the coop, as usual, is causing more hostile drama than it solves. 17:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that's fair. Objective (talk) 18:29, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm down with that. Earn your keep. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I support Mr. Cat's proposal. Nerd271 (talk) 22:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * since we seem to be making up the voting rules as we go along, the only fair option is no action. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If that's what the mob would demand, I'd be down with that, equally. We have to clarify the effing voting rules. (I say to myself; newly elected board member...) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * and cant do that after the votes are in. It doesnt matter what the mob demands - the vote tells us nothing. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Uh, by "if that's what the mob would demand", I meant — if there was a hypothetical majority uproar right here and now, one obviously disconnected from any "deadlines" for any previous votes or anything like that. In other words, I meant: if half the community would echo your exact sentiments and openly petition the other half for a change right here and now. Then I'd say, "Petitioners, lend me your r ears!", and I'd join the march. That's all. Just a hypothetical "Hey, I could agree with that, if the mob was to swing into action...". Nothing overtly hostile to your position, in other words. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Three days and three hours... and you want to close voting... Let me explain what's causing the drama - certain moderators trying to make things up and force things through with absolutely right or power to do so.

You say it's too close to call... 60% of votes are against promoting and binning him, and 54% against just promoting him - both are higher than the British EU Referendum result, and, ironically, higher than the 50/50 split on the subject of autopatrolled. If you're giving him autopatrolled then by the same opinion of the mod you should be giving him sysop status and taking him out of the bin. And then hopefully shutting up about it. "the ability to change all user rights (this includes access to the "sysoprevoke" user group, to prevent sysopping in the face of continual rights abuse, pending a community vote)" - The community have voted (since you're calling it to an end), and 60% say he stays out of the bin, and 54% say give him sysop status. End of debate. The mob has been consulted, carry out our will. If he's in the bin, get him out, if he doesn't have sysop status, give it to him. Any other course of action is you going against the moderator guidelines, and against the will of the mob. -- 21:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Frank response: Longer coop cases have rarely changed vote distributions but have produced almost endless (and counterproductive) infighting. As a tool of moderation, the coop is almost hopelessly broken -- and people resist all attempts to fix it.
 * The voting system used here is unclear, without a method for clearing it up. If we assume that voters for "Demop and bin" would also vote "Demop", then Demop wins; if we do not, then the opposite is true. This is especially true given that the votes are close. This proposal is the best idea I have to dealing with multiple uncertainties. Call it mod tyranny or call it stupidity, I think it's the best available.  21:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The Moderators and the moderators alone are in charge of interpreting vote results. Their interpretation is reasonable.  Y'all elected these people and to my knowledge they are in consensus on vote counting and their interpretation is very reasonable and justifiable.  Perhaps, a simple majority vote should not be allowed for sanctions, and I want to bring that up for discussion, but until then the moderators made a right call.  For those calling for a longer vote process, understand the timeliness of interpreting the vote allowed PlBo to get out of bin quickly.  Personally attacking the integrity of the moderators is no different from Donald Trump calling his judge a Mexican. Objective (talk) 21:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * thats bullshit. There was no criteria set up to interpret the vote any other way than 3 seperate votes resulting in no no and draw, so 3 nos. Anything else is a farce. This is ignoring that jumped straight into sanctions without deciding whether there was a case to answer. Are the people bringing these coop cases idiots incapable of learning from past mistakes? Are you not all university educated? It makes me feel a little better about my own lack of education. Piss ups and brewries. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The case was brought by me to review David's actions as a moderator taken on his own authority. He supported review so we went straight to a vote lest PlBo still be binned. We can bitch about sysoprevoke being there all day long but I doubt any moderator will remove it for now.  Objective (talk) 22:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I will also just point out that Plutoniumboss hasn't exactly been vocal in contesting this coop or its outcome. In fact, Plutonium claimed not to find fault in Gerard's reasoning behind binning, even. (And claimed to me that that wasn't just a toxic comment, either). Just saying; atleast let the person who was "on trial" set the ballpark for what is to be considered a hen and what is in fact just a feather. And like Fuzzy alludes to, right now it's not exactly Gerard and Plutonium duking it out; it's a bunch of other people rehearsing the stoning scene from Life of Brian or something. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * plutonium looked more like they were reasoned to be railroaded to me. Doesnt change the fact of the vote saying nay to sanctions. Doesnt change the fact people are twisting that vote on imaginary criteria. Doesnt change the fact it was all once again botched. If i am to assume good faith when very little is shown, i can only assume impetence. Bravo. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:55, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well... Hanlon's razor is a powerful tool, that much is certainly true of all cases. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

We've wasted more time on this than PB's allegedly crappy edits. Similar to a parking ticket case that escalates into a federal civil rights case. Objective (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Bureacracy in itself can be a useful deterrent. I doubt I'll risk an edit war again after this. Plutoniumboss (talk) 01:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Props, dude. I'll ask for you to be resysoped on your behalf when the time comes if you're cool with that.  Had this been me, I would have probably just told the wiki to go fuck themselves.  In your defense, this site does promote snark.  I hope this experience does not dissuade you from attempting snark or comedy. Objective (talk) 01:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Are there any other issues that need resolving?
To cut down on the overall number of coop cases, please raise whatever gripe you currently have here and now so we can get it over with. If you don't say anything now, sympathies will be limited if you open a new coop drama a week from now. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost)))  (talk) 17:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * (Does she know that she's not a moderator?) Plutoniumboss (talk) 20:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Do I have to be moderator to make that point? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost)))  (talk) 20:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * - 20:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I want a cookie. I hearby raise the concern that no editors are currently baking me any sort of cookies.  Not even snickerdoodles.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well I baked you some...but then I ate them! MWAHAHAHA!- 20:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Fortune cookie-Joyeuses fetes.jpg 21:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The absolute madmen. Plutoniumboss (talk) 22:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * And That's Terrible... ScepticWombat (talk) 18:35, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Let me see should we look into more issues? How about NO! But I'm always ready for cookies [mmmmmhh... Cookies....] ScepticWombat (talk) 18:35, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

David Gerard
User:Objective said this on the Saloon Bar "David, you sysoprevoke'ed and then vandal binned an editor of over a year. With all due respect to your moderator authority, this deserves a Chicken Coop review."

Owlman said "I agree. To do this permanently should have some debate."

I also agreed with them. We now have 3 sysops who want to have some kind of case against Gerard to do... something. We can find out if we do the case. Whoever wants to create the section, please do. I won't do it. 02:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * And I also agreed with them. Is it like this every time we have a coop case? Plutoniumboss (talk) 02:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The vote on whether to "review" DG's action has already been done & archived (RationalWiki:Chicken_coop/Archive52). Voting on the actions he took again Plutoniumboss is above.  Keep up.  07:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I suspect your objections are not to my actions related to anything on this page - David Gerard (talk) 10:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That's probably because everything was very quickly archived off this page. -- 10:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No, that was ever in this discussion - David Gerard (talk) 13:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If you say so, but right now there's nothing about that, here on this page for people to compare, view and form an opinion on. Everything's hidden in archive 53 or scattered over in the Saloon with not even a direct link for people voting to follow. -- 17:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Beyond asking DG (a solid help with many RW tasks) to chill out for a bit, I don't see this as enough of an incident to break out the big guns, for now. However, I do hope DG takes this in the comradely spirit it was meant and ease up on what seems a rather hair trigger ban hammer. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have nothing personally against DG, or FCP for that matter, but their conduct in this matter is highly troubling and should be addressed whilst the situation that caused it is still current. -- 21:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Vandalbinned
After adding several links to Essay:Adultism in several other wiki articles (e.g. corporal punishment), User:JorisEnter reverted them and put me in the vandal bin. I don't know what's wrong with adding links to the essay, and I don't think that I should be punished for it. Lots of articles (e.g. Origins debate) link to essays, so why is the Adultism essay any different? Totallynotharambe (talk) 12:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You must have noticed by now that your views on this issues are not shared by most editors who have commented on your essay. Therefore trying to force the essay back into our main article space, either directly or by proxy through links from other mainspace pages, doesn't seem like a good tactic.  I'm going to remove the vandal brake, provisionally, but please don't edit war, don't play dumb & don't spam your essay into mainspace.  13:52, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Stop edit warring like a proper bellend and the problem solves itself. Keep doing it, we vandal bin you, and the problem solves itself likewise. It's out of our hands now; all up to you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)