RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive136

Plutocow abusing mod tools to shut down discussion

So there's been a dispute going on at Draft talk:Lily Orchard. User:Ephrom created this draft article a couple of days ago, then pre-emptively deleted it, at their own personal discretion, seemingly after getting spooked by a couple of users (including User:Plutocow) questioning its missionality. It's important to establish there was never a consensus to delete the draft in the first place. The vote on restoring the draft, initiated by User:Carthage at 19:15 UST, 8 March 2024, came after Ephrom unilaterally deleted the draft at 04:45 UST, 7 March 2024. If no consensus/vote was needed to delete the article, then it follows that none should be needed to restore it. This spiralled into a wheel war between Plutocow and myself. Carthage and I have been attempting to steer Plutocow toward discussion. Plutocow hasn't addressed the points Carthage and myself have raised, and has instead mod-locked the talk page to completely shut down discussion. This is a blatant abuse of power. Noodles (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

But there was consensus to keep it deleted based on the vote on the talkpage, and as an elected moderator I am allowed to lock pages to prevent disruption (which you were causing by restoring the page despite consensus to keep it deleted and repeatedly pushing the issue despite mod instruction for you to stop). If anything, it should be you in the coop for your blatant disregard of site practises and mod instruction. Plutocow (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

The vote was leaning towards deletion, yes, but it wasn't quite there yet. Noodles also raised some good points about the distinction between notability and missionality. JonTron is a big YouTuber, but would he be missional if he hadn't been spewing right-wing bullshit? I don't think so. Luigifan18 (talk) 21:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

(reply to Plutocow) There isn't a clear consensus, Pluto. There's at least four editors who think Lily Orchard is a missional topic versus five who've expressed opposition. Ideally, this is something that should be resolved through discussion. What part of being a moderator gives you the authority to unilaterally shut down an ongoing discussion to avoid having to find answers to tricky questions? You were my top pick in the mod election. I regret that choice now. Noodles (talk) 21:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

You're the one who kept restoring despite the vote being against restoring. The talk page is only shut down for a few hours to get everyone to calm down, but you can't just unilaterally restore the page again and again. If you want to try to convince others, you can, but you can't ignore the results of a vote that didn't go your way, and also citing Wikipedia policy in order to push your viewpoints is not the way we do things either. If you want to contribute, you're going to have to learn how RW works, and while I get that many of the guides are incomplete/outdated, it wouldn't hurt to ask people and listen to users with more experience than you. Plutocow (talk) 22:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

In a mobocracy, the minority gives way, not because it is convinced that it is wrong, but because it is convinced that it is a minority. Consensus is not relevant in RW, especially in a case where we need to choose the extremes (either delete or keep the draft). Maybe Plutocow was a bit hasty at closing the discussion (if I were still a mod, I would've waited for a couple of days, since some users aren't very active on weekends), but Plutocow has the right as a mod to close the vote. To quote RW:moderator: "The second function of the moderators is to help boot-strap certain policies or procedures that we struggle with. A great example of this is how to vote for something, how long'does a vote last, when does it pass or fail, what should even be voted on? There is no way to address these issues without some people having the power to set a certain amount of basic policy." I understand you are upset, Noodles, and you might consider this some form of constitutional hardball, but Plutocow didn't violate our guidelines at all. If you didn't like what they did, just don't vote for them on November. I think we should close this case. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 22:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

(reply to Plutocow) Where did I "cit[e] Wikipedia policy?" I have pointed to RW's notability policy for YouTubers to make it clear that Lily Orchard (who as 141k subscribers) meets the current standard. You seem to have been unaware this policy existed, and have steadfastly ignored its relevance in this discussion. I would appreciate it if you stop throwing out accusations as well. Noodles (talk) 22:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

My two cents: this should not be in the chicken coop, this should be in ATIM, it's just an edit war.

Vote currently is 5-3 in favor of deleting, so in my opinion it's bad form to repeatedly try to restore the page. I'm not terribly convinced that Lily Orchard fits the current missions, it seems like she's a better fit for wikis like Wikitubia that cover YouTube personalities / drama.

On the ableism angle, from a different perspective, I actually would support an article on the Big Bang Theory TV show and the controversies over how it represented "nerds" / autism, as some have accused the show of being rather ableist in its depiction. Lily Orchard's depiction would actually fit in as an example in this. BobJohnson (talk) 22:16, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

(reply to BonJohnson) The description at the top of the page states this page is for reporting cases of administrative abuse. I count mod-locking an ongoing discussion so that no one else can comment – thus ensuring the mod gets the last word and preventing them from having to answer questions from multiple users – as an abuse of moderator abilities.

Creating an article The Big Big Theory seems like a good idea. There's definitely more than one angle that could be explored there. But I haven't seen any strong arguments against Lily Orchards's missionality put forward. It seems like it'd be more efficient to have a single article collecting all missional information on Orchard than to have coverage scattered across a bunch of related articles, e.g. ContraPoints, with whom LO has publicly locked horns; a potential BBT article for the autism-related statements; MLP:FIS, if anyone feels her fannish conduct is relevant (I'm divided on that question). Ideally, the discussion would've shifted to figuring out the best approach on how to cover LO after the initial flurry of wheel warring, but Pluto seems to have been set on throwing their weight around instead of engaging in a constructive discussion. Noodles (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I guess what really is needed is "more work on mission focus". RW does not cover every random YouTuber nowadays. There's history for this: RW used to have a ton of cranky YouTubers, but a lot were eventually nuked, both in the purge and later times. Really notable YouTubers that fit the mission (or even some slightly less notable ones whose mission oriented elements are really strong) will still get covered, but it's much less than it used to be. From my perspective, it is much harder to cover online-only personalities (that are not notable enough to attract attention in other media) in a way that would pass muster with the "living persons" guidelines. Online-only personalities also tend to attract drama, and are more likely to be poorly written to reflect online drama instead of the mission. None of these reasons are exclusionary per se, but it does mean that there is a reasonably high bar for a YouTuber to make mainspace.

Therefore, the one argument that would make sense to me here: it's a draft. Given that the original author deleted the draft, I would support restoring the draft if you want to "pick up the ball" and make it mission-oriented. Draft-space is not main-space after all, and if one feels they actually can make a mainspace worthy article (despite my personal skepticism), I see no reason why not to let them try. BobJohnson

(talk) 00:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

If anything, RW seems the ideal place to cover Orchard's checkered history, since the mission of debunking crankery is balanced by a culture of trans acceptance. When LO's history is discussed online, it's often either in rabidly transphobic cesspits (if you know, you know), or in overdramatic Tumblr callouts that blow up someone liking cartoons as an adult into something sinister. Ideally, expanding the draft would be a team effort. But Ephrom, the original creator, has seemingly been scared off. And I'm not willing to risk devoting more time to the draft only to have my work arbitrarily tossed out a second time. Once burned, twice shy, as the saying goes. Noodles (talk) 00:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Our "notability" policies are much different from Wikipedia's; ours even makes it explicit that we can make exceptions where missionality is concerned (for example, Caleb Maupin doesn't meet the required amount of subscribers, but because he's missional in other ways besides YouTube he still gets an article). Also, you tried to argue how votes weren't enough to establish "consensus", which is true on Wikipedia but not here. Plutocow (talk) 22:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey guys it’s been a while, how’s everything go- oh my. Pluto didn’t seem to have done anything wrong, technically they are allowed to close the discussion, so there isn’t much of a case in favor of Noodle. There really are no solid rules regarding closing AfDs and enacting the majority’s wishes; heck I’ve sometimes nuked AfD’d articles after mere hours if there’s like zero percent chance the article lives. I say we archive this case. --Goatspeed. _{Fossil evidence of my evolution}CircularRasoning^{Steal my ideas} 22:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Another case where I'll wait for someone else to archive since it involves me. Still, we were this close to going an entire year without any coops. Plutocow (talk) 22:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

It's okay. But I was thinking it'd be over something of greater significance, like the 2024 US election cycle or the war in Gaza. --Goatspeed. _{Fossil evidence of my evolution}CircularRasoning^{Steal my ideas} 22:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

The Saloon Bar hasn't had any discussions go into HCM in recent memory IIRC. Luigifan18 (talk) 23:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ "Also, you tried to argue how votes weren't enough to establish 'consensus', which is true on Wikipedia but not here." So, in other words, you can't point to an actual instance of me "citing Wikipedia policy" as if it was RW policy, as you originally claimed? I thought it was clear from my comments that I was drawing a distinction between a consensus and a simple majority. A simple majority of people could answer a poll asking "do vaccines cause autism?" in the affirmative and that wouldn't displace the scientific consensus that they don't. The strength of evidence and expert opinion helps determine what is regarded as factually correct. So should the strength of arguments be a factor in resolving content disputes. Frankly, the case being put forward by the "delete" side has been weak at best, evasive at worst. And it doesn't help that you've been a weathervane on whether "consensus" (whatever you understand this to mean) is a "complete nonfactor" on RW or something I need to accept, even if it's wrong. Noodles (talk) 23:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Everyone else has told you that's not how things work here, but this discussion should have ended long ago. Plutocow (talk) 23:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

You aren't actually addressing the points that have been raised, both regarding the article's missionality and your conduct as a mod. This wouldn't have escalated to this level if you hadn't used mod powers to close an ongoing discussion in your favor. The fact you want to pre-emptively close this discussion too without actually addressing your conduct isn't helping your case. Noodles (talk) 23:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, this discussion is just over two hours old? I'm curious what your definition of "long ago" is? Noodles (talk) 23:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Other users have said that there has been no abuse of mod tools (GeeJayK, CircularReasoning). So.... Lavalizard101 (talk) 23:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

GeeJayK conceded that Pluto may have been "a bit hasty at closing the discussion." CircularReasoning stated Pluto "didn't seem to have done anything wrong" (emphasis mine). No one has deigned to articulate why it was acceptable for Plutocow to pre-emptively close an ongoing discussion in their favor and ignore comments made in good-faith by two active contributors who obviously aren't trolls. In any case, I hope the "mob" realizes that letting mods run roughshod over productive contributors comes at a cost. We haven't seen Ephrom since this started, and I won't be contributing to RW going forward, besides correcting typos or broken links I find. Noodles (talk) 23:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

In Plutocow's defense, he only locked the talk page for about 9 hours. I don't know if I'd call that "closing the vote". It’s dodgy for sure, but if he said that his intention was to cool everyone off, I could believe him. Luigifan18 (talk) 00:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Can't you just acknowledge when the results of a discussion just don't go your way, Noodles? You won't be missed if you take everything so personally Plutocow (talk) 00:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Can you ever acknowledge criticism or respond to good-faith questions with anything other than evasion, stonewalling, or tit-for-tat accusations? In any case, no one's seems to have noticed the work I've done around here, so what are you suggesting has changed? You've persistently talked down to me even I've been around as long as others involved in this discussion and have a record of constructive contributions to show for it. Noodles (talk) 01:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey User:Noodles, can you do me a solid and stop speaking for me? I wasn't "scared off" because of the backlash the article got, truth be told it was something I thought might have fit under the mission statement but wasn't fully sure, basically I knew that if she did meet the qualifications, she was the exact farthest you could go. I assumed it would be fine given I had previously created pages on people like Eric Dubay and James Somerton before, and nobody took an issue with it, plus I thought it might serve as a good chance to talk about somebody I have a large amount of knowledge on and bring people a community I'm from know about to the attention of this community (I'm also in the Slideshow Commentary Community and we are very aware of Lily Orchard). I stopped engaging in this discussion primarily because it turned into a series of strawman arguments and misunderstandings. One person said ablism is one of Lily's many negative qualities we could document, somebody else says we can't document every case of somebody being ableist as if that is what person one said, and then another person would say ablism is something we document as if person two was denying it. The narrative you're creating is utterly nonsensical, and the implication that I would somehow leave despite being a well respected editor (even people on the talk page acknowledge this) merely because I got some backlash is downright insulting.Ephrom (talk) 8:32, 10 March 2024 (EST)

This was your last comment before (seemingly) checking out of the discussion. I don't think it was unreasonable to conclude from that comment and your ensuing silence that the negative reaction had dissuaded you from further engagement with the article and any related discussion. In any case, sorry for seeing value in your contributions, and stepping up in your defense. If you're still interested in this article, see BobJohnson's comment above. He's expressed a willingness to restore the draft so long as someone's committed to working on it. Best wishes. Noodles (talk) 00:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

"Sorry for seeing value in your contributions and stepping up in your defense"?!? Wooooooooowwwwwwww. That is passive-aggressive as hell. Plutocow had a point when he said it should be you in the coop. Luigifan18 (talk) 00:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

In my defense, "do me a solid and stop speaking for me" read as extremely passive-aggressive to me, especially since I've tried to be supportive of Ephrom and frame speculation as speculation (I actually said "seemingly been scared off"). In any case, I apologize for reacting like this. Haven't exactly been shown the milk of kindness here despite having actually been willing to put in the work with this article. Noodles (talk) 01:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Anyway, I trust whatever might come of the draft will be safe in Ephrom's hands, given their excellent work on the iilluminaughtii and James Somerton articles. Gonna step back from this now. I'm miserably sick with what is likely COVID despite masking and hand-washing obsessively. Probably best if I just go play video games instead of trying to spend a lost weekend being "productive." Adieu, I suppose. Noodles (talk) 01:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘It's hard for me to get worked up about a YouTuber who appears to be of marginal notability and missionality. That said, I think there should be a bit more deference about people working on draft articles to demonstrate a good case for notability and missionality before the article is moved to mainspace. This article was deleted after 4 days; there are a lot of other draftspace articles that have languished for much longer. Also as noted above by BobJohnson, this issue should have been raised in ATIM, not the coop. Bongolian (talk) 02:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I was gonna vote nay on restoring the page, but noticed it was locked. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 03:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Anyways I think a day is too soon to close a vote, but since it’s just a temporary lock until people calm down (apparently there was an edit war), that means Plutocow did nothing wrong and there’s no coop case. I move to archive. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 03:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

"Lily Orchard isn't missional." She's a controversial ableist and plagiarist, with a lot of hate directed towards her both out of transphobic sentiment and genuine grievances. Real harm has been committed here.

"Lily Orchard isn't notable." She has almost a hundred fifty thousand subscribers.

Any argument that it's not worth having an article on Orchard rely on demonstrably untrue premises and weak, questionable platitudes that we "shouldn't have articles on every rando under the sun." This PRATT has already been refuted, but that refutation is probably gonna get ignored anyways.

Perhaps we should purge all our articles of "drama," and completely piss on the real harm that these dramas have caused and piss away and all documentation? I can think of a few. Carthage (talk) 09:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Unilaterally restoring purged draft pages is bad form, especially if they're in the same state they were deleted as. I'd recommend working on a new version of the article in your own userspace instead and only moving it into draftspace once it's sufficiently different enough from the original. That aside, Pluto may have closed the vote a bit prematurely. I don't really think it warrants the scale of a Coop (I certainly don't think any sanctions are needed), but the rule for this stuff is usually "make sure the discussion has calmed down". As far as Lily Orchards relevance; she meets the minimum YouTube notability guidelines. As for missionality... I guess? I'm just not sure how her article wouldn't just wind up being a "gallery of the bad things she doneth". We have a problematic page category for pages that are just that because we've broadly drifted from trying to cover individuals to covering ideas, which is really a quality over quantity situation. The main thing I know about Lily Orchard is that she has opinions about as awful as Doug Walker, and as shitty as Doug is, there's a reason we don't have an article about him. Suggesting a rapid archive for this case. -- Techpriest (talk) 13:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm not the one who restored the original draft. That was Noodles. I also think people should know about bad actors. Youtube, like it or not, is a platform of influence. People are tuned into Youtube to get their information, for better or for worse. It's no different than covering controversial figures on mainstream media. People should know about bad actors to encourage greater media literacy. Covering the people who push ideas is just as important as covering the ideas themselves. Carthage (talk) 13:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I would've liked to see the discussion go on longer. Was thinking about voting, leaned towards abstention, though was still deciding. Chillpilled (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Since the discussion was ended without consensus, would it be permitted to unlock it? Carthage (talk) 18:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Archive

I move to archive this case with no action on the basis that Plutocow only locked the talk page temporarily (it’s already expired) and therefore did nothing wrong. Anyone second? Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 18:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Everything that will be said has been said I suppose, so I second. Carthage (talk) 19:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, archive. Bongolian (talk) 19:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Noodles LANCB'ed apparently, so there's no need to keep this open. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 08:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

As has been said, this never should have been brought to the Chicken Coop in the first place. Move along. there's nothing to see here. Spud (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The only thing which 'could have been done better' on this event is if Plutocow had asked another mod to intervene in the earlier argument. Might have avoided the blow-up getting as big as it did. But yeah, part from that send to the archive. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)