RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive32

This is an archive page, last updated 8 December 2018. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>

, (new)(back)

PSaL

Self-cooping because I remove Albannach's rights as he has deleted a talk page several times after being asked not to. If I knew the way/I would take you home. 15:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Throw him into the pit of ice. Sophie^Wilder 16:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The talk page was in his user space. If it was anywhere else, I'd agree, but not for someone's personal space. I think that users should have some reasonable free usage of their user space, provided that they don't try to use it as a webhost or something like that. –Meine Ehere heißt Toleranz (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 17:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

IMNSHO, he should not be permitted to delete his user-talk page if anyone other than him has written on it. Blanking is a different story, but history should be preserved to the extent the mainpage history is preserved. As soon as he agrees to cut it the fuck out, rights should be restored. Hipocrite (talk) 17:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Guys. Go outside. It's really nice here. When's the last time you spent the day drunk getting sunburned? Do something. Whatever it is, do something. There is a direct relationship between sane people's misery and how much time they spend around some of these pathetic obsessive compulsive children. Take a wiki break, ToP. 17:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

But i dont wanna go outside!--^Mikal_lakiM 19:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Set up Pibot on the page and stop being so determined a cock - David Gerard (talk) 19:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I have this image of PSaL putting his mop and badge on Chief Toulouse's desk and taking a day off for the IAB investigation... EVDebs (talk) 23:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Seriously: PSAL, you keep pulling this shit, like you're looking for an excuse. As your second level of response, rather than doing something even you admit is coopable, try helpfully setting up Pibot on their page. This will save the observed problem where you are actively driving away people who actually contribute stuff to the wiki. Does that answer your question as to what to do about this? - David Gerard (talk) 07:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Markman

I Propose we block Markman indef. While I enjoy a good piece of parody, I don't think it's right for him to be blocking good-faith conservapedia users to further his unfunny parody. I don't think we should permit anything to make it look like we support his unfunny parody. Vote no if you disagree, but when there's blowback, it's your fault. Hipocrite (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Could you give examples? ^talk 18:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely. Here's his unfunny parody at Conservapedia: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Could find more.

Here's his blocking what I thought were good faith users - [5], [6], again, could find more. Hipocrite (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Block him

1. Hipocrite (talk) 17:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC) Also what TLGG said. Hipocrite (talk) 17:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
2. 180 on my previous perspective now that I'm becoming acutely aware of RW's perception to qualified and respectable editors this site isn't attracting. Reversing course on uncritically accepting obvious trolls like Markman is the tip of the iceberg but a fine place to start. 17:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Yeah, he can troll all he likes at CP. We, on the other hand, ought to have standards. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
4. I'd like it if we stopped paying so much attention to CP, but until then, we don't need to make it look like we're the reason CP is useless and crazy. RachelW (talk) 01:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

This from a person who literally stalked Conservative. Pathetic. Tielec01 (talk) 01:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't block him

1. You want to block a guy here in order to police his activities at some other website? That's bullshit -- and yet more evidence that RW has a lot of work to do to overcome being nothing more than a CP vandal/troll hub. Also, "Nate Keaton" (this is the block in question, I assume...) is not a "good-faith CP editor." He's a sock of a Rationalwiki old-timer, so there are layers of trolling at play. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 17:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

   How are we supposed to move from being nothing more than a CP vandal/troll hub without getting rid of the worst CP/vandaltrolls? Hipocrite (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

2. Based on the reasons presented here, I see no reason to block. I haven't paid any attention to his activities at CP, and not that much to his activities at RW; but if an argument is to be made for blocking him from RW, it should be on the grounds of what goes on here, not there. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

This attitude is antiquated. Once you know what someone's about, any claim that we can't judge him for his behavior elsewhere is not only lazy and arbitrary, but evidences a complete lack of consideration of the broader problem that RW is attracting qualified and respectable editors at an extremely low rate. We do get plenty of cranks. Now we've got a troll who's openly stated he's opposed to RW's purpose. Who are you two protecting? Look at the big picture. 17:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

"Looking at the big picture" is exactly why I think this cooping is bullshit. The problem isn't what Markman does on CP; the problem is that RW is a far better website once you take away TWIGOCP and a few dozen related and now mostly dead pages. The bigger picture is that even without Markman, we'd still have guys like Fergus and a whole bunch of others openly taunting CP editors from one of our highest-traffic pages. Blocking Markman is just putting a Band-aid on a tumor. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 18:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Then get rid of them too. You're allowed to take as strong a position as I am, you know. Get rid of me for that matter. You're falling for the perfection fallacy. There's nothing wrong with a piecemeal solution when you're not doing shit about the problems to start with. How many people with substantial work or educational background in important issues join up lately? We should do everything we can to attract these editors. It's not happening and not one single person here things Markman is a good faith editor. Again, who are you protecting? 18:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I ain't protecting nobody. Hell, I haven't even been able to read CP for about a month now, so I have no horse in this race. This all looks like a case of somebody being butthurt because they got out-trolled. I'd rather see Markman not editing here (his decent, if not terribly interesting edits to things like Israel not withstanding...) but implementing a piecemeal solution to a big problem, and then pretending that the problem is fixed, strikes me as worse than not doing anything at all. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 18:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I have not attempted to edit Conservapedia in quite a while. I'm happy to hear what suggestion you have to solving the bigger problem. I think hacking at the most obvious and blatant offender is an approach worth considering. Hipocrite (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

My suggestion. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 18:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

(too many ECs) Who's pretending any problems around these broader issues have ever been fixed? We haven't even been able to get into the discussions about quality and culture you and I have been talking about for years. I hate WIGOCP too. It's a terrible habit. CP is a rotten place. If people want to purge it, that's a community deal that will have a huge impact on the community. But I don't why you'd put handling that huge can of worms before getting to much easier problems. 18:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

1. I see no reason to block someone for what they've done elsewhere. If we were doing that, why wasn't User: Newton first on the chopping block after everything he's put about Fergus Mason. For that matter why aren't we voting on Fergus for doxing Kenneth on CP? Be consistent or stop whining. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 22:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
2. He may be a dick at CP, but if it doesn't spill over here (it hasn't yet) then we shouldn't block him. He has made quite a few constructive edits here actually. The Invisible Man^{I spoke to Him} 23:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
3. So now we block people for trolling OTHER sites. You guys are fucking jokes. Nutty I both love and hate you; your campaign for very serious people to come to this wiki is misguided. Even if getting VSP to the site wasn't a stultifying and inane goal, Markman actually fit that definition on RW. He made productive good faith edits. Hypocrite, I see you are determined to live up to your nickname, you are the last person who should be arguing about banning CP trolls. How about we prosecute the pathetic fuck who actually contravened our community standards by doxing a mentally unstable person? Tielec01 (talk) 00:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
4. I/we agree, completely unjustified to block him/her/us/them/me. I/we think we should make him/her/them/me/us a sysop. Markman (talk) 07:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

“”tl;dr: don't google people's names and post stuff you find.

1. I say no, if only because his editing here, whilst continuing to grow in power over at CP makes a mockery of their "Member of a site promoting vandalism" block reason. Once again it proves that Kara, Ken & Co would rather look the other way than risk invoking the wrath of Dear Leader and losing the only authority they've ever had. After all, they saw what happened to Rob (where is he these days?), Jinx, et al. Markman is no Bugler or TK, but anybody who can corrupt the system from within, without resorting to mindless vandalism, is fine by me. --PsyGremlin^{話しなさい} 20:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)--PsyGremlin^{話しなさい} 20:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Goat

1. Markman, please stop editing at Conservapedia. Everyone here and there knows you're a parodist. You also wouldn't be the first person at RationalWiki with a history of fucking with those dumbasses. If you quit CP, and made good edits here, I'd be fine with it. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 17:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Make it 1-2 months and I'll vote yes. Osaka Sun (talk) 18:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
3. I have no love for Markman, But i'm not going to vote to block him because he's a tosser on some other website (There are exceptions to that principle but thats irrelevant here) and if we're just going to target him. Change this to a more general campaign and i may find it less "look we're not bad see!"--^Mikal_lakiM 18:29, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
4. I completely agree with TheLateGatsby and Mikal. Spud (talk) 06:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Spin-off WIGO:CP

1. Per PSL's well reasoned suggestion, we should progress immediately to spinning off WIGO Conservapedia. Hipocrite (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Seconded. The Invisible Man^{I spoke to Him} 23:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Guess I gotta. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 00:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
4. The time has come. This probably isn't the place, though. Doctor Dark (talk) 23:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
5. ⍵==⁍ ~ ~ ~ 23:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

"Vote no if you disagree, but when there's blowback, it's your fault." Um, what "blowback" do you have in mind? That people might say something on a website edited by a half-dozen crackpots and read mostly by people who also edit here? Are there any other stakes that I'm not seeing? PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 18:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Here's the article that was the frequently bandied around reason that this website was "notable" on TOW - [7] - "monitor Conservapedia. And—by their own admission—engage in acts of cyber-vandalism." Hipocrite (talk) 18:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that is our biggest problem. but as I said above, I don't see how blocking one of the many people who use this site as a way to antagonize CP and its editors will do Jack to solve the problem. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 18:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I accept your suggestion above and added it as an alternative. Hipocrite (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I have spoken to Marksman, and he has willingly agreed to stop editing RW. In the future, before you start proceedings to ban someone, it often helps if you explain matters to them and ask for their help. This doesn't always work, but it's always a good first step. In this case, Marksman seems to have seen how his presence here would hinder our efforts to move beyond a reputation as a CP/vandal-centric site.--^talk 19:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

a small point but blocking someone sends a different message than asking them politely to leave. It may be minor but since the issue has been raised is the general reputation of RW even salvagable ? Hamster (talk) 21:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

This whole conversation is dumb...and here's why....

Markham is a CP troll. OK, but so what? Have they done anything to warrant a blocking on RW? If so, present it. Otherwise there is no cause to block him and this conversation should never have been initiated. Being a dick on another website has never been grounds for RW action Case closed. Aceⁱ⁹ 03:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Hipocrite

I'm not looking for disciplinary action, only conflict resolution. I'm hoping to come to a calm, peaceful resolution.

I've had a long time to calm down, because I got really angry a comment he made.

He seems to have a history of bullying me doing things that generally end up being worse then what I'm doing. The thing that really set me over the edge today was this [8], summary, comment, name calling, and removal. First, several of my friends' grandfathers fought for the Second Reich in World War I, and as a reward for it, they were branded traitors and murdered by the Nazis, and so that comment about made me lose my crap. Most of my friends shouldn't even be in this country, but they are because they were forced out of Germany by brownshirt thugs. Second, my grandparents fought the Nazis and went through stuff that none of us can imagine. Third, I'm eastern European and I have a personal connection to this, and I don't appreciate some bully coming in and doing stuff like this [9] to my work on that subject because he's stuck on "it's creepy because it's about rape." He also called me an "aspie fuck" [10]. His actions end up being worse than what I'm doing by being trivializing to the Holocaust and rape. Here's a sarcastic template that he added that he self removed [11]. Since his grandfather was in a concentration camp, he shouldn't be trivializing the victims of Nazi genocide with edits like this [12] or this [13] and this [14]. If he thinks that it's creepy to stand up for victims of rape and genocide, the solution is not to trivialize the it by adding vandalism and ad hominem to articles on the subject. What he's doing here is worse than what I've done.

I would like it if he could calmly present his side of the story and help us work toward an agreement. –Александр(а) (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 23:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

He apparently doesn't like you. Being a dick about that isn't against the rules. Here's a resolution that would serve you better than asking questions you don't want the answers to: take a break and get over it. 00:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Nutty is right, although his presentation is (as always) a little rough. He's a fan of the tough love. I wish I had been able to follow this conflict better, but frankly it all seems a blur of hostility and competing claims about who can take offense harder.

It's odd for Hipocrit to take issue with the prevalence of rape-talk in an article about rape. But on the other hand, it's perfectly sensible to nominate the article for deletion, since it is borderline and we're even now just chatting about what is on-mission. And of course, both of you have the right to behave however you want, with him being a massive asshole and you spamming the Saloon Bar with Facebook-esque links.

The best solution is probably to refuse to engage, and to request votes on serious disputes about the article.--^talk 00:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

This comment right here? This comment is why we pay AD the big bucks. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 00:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. My intent here was to help resolve hard feelings. AD has given good advice, thanks. I won't worry about it. I'm a bit mad over the one sided comment. I'm going to stop posting stupid shit all the time. –Александр(а) (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 01:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't care about complaints about the article as long as people aren't going "OMFG rape!!!1!!1!!" or trying to make it victim blaming against the people of the Soviet Union. –Александр(а) (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 01:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I mean, it's some not-quite-random person on the internet. Just ignore it. ^talk 21:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I keep that in mind before worrying about some random fool. More people should consider that. –Александр(а) (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 22:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Hipocrite needs to stop being a dick, and you need to work on being less annoying - David Gerard (talk) 20:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Sprocket J. Cogswell

A couple of days ago I tried to inject the topic of left wing liberal authoritarianism on the page on authoritarianism. I have been censored from doing so. My contribution was vandalized. After I reverted to the pre-vandalized version, I was banned for reverting to "boring" versions. The ban was later taken off. On a talk page, some flaws in my argument were brought up, so I came up with a totally new contribution. I also edited the statism page to reflect a more rational viewpoint. After my totally new and improved contibutions were put up, Sprocket J Cogswell vandalized my new contributions(which were not reversions, they were new contributions), he put me in the "vandal bin". His claimed reason for the ban is that I "reverted" to "boring" versions of established articles. Yes I did revert a few days ago, but after I was un-banned I did not revert any articles, I formulated new contributions. So Sprocket J Cogswell's more recent allegation that I reverted and that that is the reason for the ban. This is an abuse of his admin status because he has banned me on a false charge, the real purpose of the ban is to censor me. Now I am appealing to be taken off the ban. I have some legit criticisms of some of the irrational, illogical assertions on the authoritarianism page, and the statism page. Now, I get that saying statism is a form of authoritarianism is a controversial statement. On the other hand, the page currently has a badly worded fallacious statement that: Although many libertarians and anarchists have attempted to equate the two, statism and authoritarianism are not the same thing; although most authoritarians (especially of the right-wing type) are statists, so are quite a lot of people who believe one of the functions of government is to enforce civil rights. As I have pointed out, this non-argument contains at least two logical fallacies: argument by assertion(first part) and a non-sequitor(second part). No one has denied this. Now, since, the statements I have made are controversial, I think I should take them to the debate pages, and I wish to propose some formal debates in which these ideas can be challenged. I am asking that I be removed from the vandal bin and unbanned so that I may take the debate to the debate pages. I would refrain from editing the main authoritarianism page or the main statism page until such time as a constructive debate has occurred. I am not here to troll or vandalize, and I believe placing me in the vandal bin was an abuse and based on a false allegation. So, please unban me so that I may create the debates on the debate pages. Like I said, until after formal debates have occurred on the controversial topics, I will not edit the main page on authoritarianism or statism until after the debates. I am not trying to troll or vandalize, so please un block me. If this is not the right place to take my appeal, please forgive me, I am new here, and still learning. I feel this is a legit issue and I'm not trying to troll.StopTheViolence (talk) 13:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)StopTheViolence

The specific debates I wish to formalize are: 1.Is statism a type of authoritarianism? 2. Is liberalism a type of authoritarianism? 3. Is taxation violence? 4. Is Liberalism violence? Possibly a couple others that I may think of later.StopTheViolence (talk) 13:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)StopTheViolence

In a nut shell my case for unbanning is based on me turning a "new leaf" in that I will hold off on posting controversial material on the main authoritarianism and statism pages until after debates have happened(or at least opponents of my assertions can have the opportunity to debate them) AND placing me in the vandal bin was a mistake.StopTheViolence (talk)StopTheViolence

I removed you from the vandal bin, but it's not going to do much. You will be reverted and harassed whenever you challenge the group think at RW. Enjoy. WIll a moderator please close and archive this frivolous coop? 13:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Certainly no abuse of power here, just reverting. Belongs on article talk pages.--^talk 14:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Concur. Calling it "vandalism" does you no favours, but I don't expect you to appreciate that - David Gerard (talk) 15:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Cheers, guys. Am I supposed to say something here? Cause I got nothin, save to remind OP that I unblocked em about half an hour into a three-month block hammered on by another sysop. If this is the thanks I get, then <coarsely worded epithets redacted>. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 02:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

You believe that taxation, statism and liberalism creates the societies with the highest civil liberties and human development - instead of fighting The Man - so you get what you deserve. Osaka Sun (talk) 02:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

EnoughIsEnough

While I know this guy is somewhat of a laughingstock and he has some entertainment value, more mature consideration makes me wonder if he isn't crossing somewhat of line with his more spectacular rants here.--Weirdstuff (talk) 15:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

What power has he abused? What do you want done? Have you notified him on his talkpage that you Cooped him?--^talk 15:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

"personal attacks" nuf sed. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but he's a harmless nutter and nobody takes him seriously. Is he actually disrupting the site? I'd say leave him be. Innocent Bystander (talk) 16:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

OK. That's cool. :-) I just thought the fact that a user is making what look like death threats - however implausible - should be raised somewhere. I fully agree that he's more of an buffoon than a real threat.--Weirdstuff (talk) 18:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Mikal

He just dropped a block on me and deleted an essay because he disagrees and misinterpreted it. At least move it to user space. This is how Hamiliton got desysoped. –Aleksandr(a) Ehrenstein, Jewish Bolshevik 02:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Whatever will you do without being able to edit for 5 minutes and without an essay that states "all germans deserved to die but we shouldn't have cause then we'd be monsters"--Mikal | lakiM 02:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I haven't read the essay, but unless it was on the base and wretched level of User:Tisane's horrific opus, I doubt deletion was warranted. Since the block was only for five minutes, I don't think that's worth mentioning. Next time, go to the essay's talk page instead of the coop.--"Shut up, Brx." 02:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

That's a blant example of quote mining. The point was that it would have been wrong to collectively punish the Germans. –Aleksandr(a) Ehrenstein, Jewish Bolshevik 02:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Mikal was summarising, not quote mining. & He was right to delete the essay, which is appalling. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 06:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Another point to add: you need to stop dropping long blocks as jokes. Use the three second block like everyone else. I've seen other people point out that your blocks are excessive. –Aleksandr(a) Ehrenstein, Jewish Bolshevik 02:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

User:AD

He just revoked my tech and sysop rights because he claims I threatened Hamiliton here. I don't see anything that could be a threat. All I did was offer to give him sysop rights back if there were no objections by anyone else. I have no ****ing idea what this was about. I've also been working on gadgets and I have a plan of migrating template style code to the CSS pages for multi skin compatibility. –Aleksandr(a) Ehrenstein, Jewish Bolshevik 02:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I've given them back just because your whining seems clearly able to outpace my patience with your attitude. It is probably a poor decision on my part.--^talk 02:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. No hard feelings. –Aleksandr(a) Ehrenstein, Jewish Bolshevik 02:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Content dispute blocking

Let's say, hypothetically, that a good faith user repeatedly makes bad edits to mainspace, and shows no sign of improvement. The sheer amount of poor edits they make becomes unmanageable, and noticeably decreases the quality of mainspace. Should it be possible for them to be barred from editing mainspace, at least in the traditional way? Let's say a good faith user relentlessly barrages articles with irrelevant and superfluous information in an aesthetically displeasing fashion. Could their mainspace edits instead be filtered through talk pages, and implemented for their worthiness by less problematic editors? Ex: User:Billy-Jane desires to add to Homeopathy that the pope once tried it. Unable to edit the article, she asks on the talk page if the edit could be made for her (along with a relevant source). User:Bobby-Lynn declines to make the edit, since it adds nothing to the homeopathy page and is really just a trivial detail that muddles legibility.

What does the community think about such a policy?--"Shut up, Brx." 18:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

No such drastic measures are required, since that's already pretty much how it goes in practice. PC's unhelpful edits (usually) get reverted, she takes it to the talk page where (usually) nobody supports adding them. It's a bit of a headache, but it's how things work on a wiki & doesn't involve singling her out unnecessarily for special treatment. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's how it works out, de facto. Good-faith but just terrible editors (and I think we all have one person in particular in mind) can be very frustrating to deal with, but we have to make sure that we engage and get their views heard (if not implemented). The talk page medium is a good one for that, and I have sometimes dropped a quick note on a talk page, advising that such is the best way to get things done. When it's done politely, I've never had a problem.--^talk 21:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Vile personal attack

Complaint withdrawn

http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=RationalWiki%3ASaloon_bar&diff=1238726&oldid=1238724

Because it's not like people never act differently online than they do IRL. Ive also told this user that i function normally IRL, so he was concern trolling then or being completely vile now.

–Aleksandr(a) Ehrenstein, Jewish Bolshevik 18:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Every community (even those that are online) is still a community. If you "function normally IRL", why on earth do you save behaviour like this for RationalWiki? Do you dispute that I (and the other editors here) are real people, or is your justification that because you don't know me (or the others) personally, it doesn't matter? - GrantC (talk) 18:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I've been trying not to, but it was hard when there were users who gleefully spewed Nazi apologist BS. Anyway, please don't get bogged down blaming the victim. I think that the. unseriois nature and HCM may have been contributing factors. –Aleksandr(a) Ehrenstein, Jewish Bolshevik 19:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not blaming the victim. Rather, I'm calling into question whether you're a victim at all. Your posts are often incendiary and seem designed to put the community into an uproar, and your reaction when the inevitable uproar occurs is to be indignant. Perhaps if you reformed your behaviour you would find a more welcoming stance from the editors here. - GrantC (talk) 19:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I handnt seen it that way before. I thought I was just being too accusatory. –Aleksandr(a) Ehrenstein, Jewish Bolshevik 19:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

" users who gleefully spewed Nazi apologist BS." you keep getting mad at us for telling you we dont like you, then do things that make us not like you. Think about that for a moment Ehr, it isnt hard. --Mikal | lakiM 19:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

^ This. Hipo^crite 19:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Yet another frivolous coop from our resident griefer. Your erratic behavior has been grating on people's nerves for months. You need to step back and ask yourself how you would view you were you someone else. You'd want you off this site and out of your hair. You're in no position to counsel an autistic person on jack shit given your own crummy behavior. Stop the Nazi shit. Stop talking about getting people laid — it's creepy. You're creepy. Stop throwing temper tantrums every time someone does something you don't like. Stop talking about rape. Better yet, stop talking. 19:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I haven't been Cooped in ages. Feels good to be back. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 20:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Then you get the honor of drafting the request for a community ban. Screw people who cause this much trouble. 20:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I realize I have a problem. I should get some kind of job to do with other users that we can cooperate on. Any suggestions? I have a project to move the template formatting to the skin CSS pages for interskin compatibility and for other people better customize their skins. –Aleksandr(a) Ehrenstein, Jewish Bolshevik 20:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Why is this thread in the coop? Sophie^Wilder 20:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Because nobody's archived it yet. There was some flapping around, the defendant finally showed up, the plaintiff withdrew, and that's a wrap, folks. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 20:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Jewish Nobel Prizes

This article was deleted by User:Psygremlin as antisemitic, and a revert was refused. The List of Jewish Nobel Laureates is a trope, but a well-established one, Wikipedia has one, and Jewish organisations also circulate them. The main problem is, at a guess, that I had written that it is used for claims of Jewish superiority. It is used that way. I request reinstatement, or alternatively the content could go in the Nobel Prize article.Drelane (talk) 13:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• That could be racist, as you note.
• This is not Wikipedia.
• How would such an article serve the RW mission?
• Why don't we have an article on Jewish (Russian or Ukrainian) violin virtuosi? That cultural correlation has been noticed for a long time.
• What's the best case to be made that RationalWiki needs such an article? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I move that the Seffrican be taken outside and shot, and his family sent the bill for the bullet. What the hell is this doing in the Coop? PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 14:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The main reason to include it is that the list is now cited as evidence of Muslim inferiority, by among others Richard Dawkins. It has become a controversial issue. Yes it is racist to suggest that Jews are more intelligent, but I did not say they were. Other people do.Drelane (talk) 14:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

We probably don't need a list -- wiki articles that are nothing but lists are lame, anyways. Two sentences in the Nobel Prize article. One telling me what percentage of Nobel winners identified as Jews, and one telling me what people have done with that information. Case closed. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 14:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

From dispute about article content to the Coop in less than two hours... I predict that working with this user will be fun.--ZooGuard (talk) 14:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd go one step further than PS&L, we might (just) need a sentence in the Nobel Prize article stating that there are those who use the preponderance of certain subsets, Jews, "whites", men, etc, to claim some sort of superiority. Innocent Bystander (talk) 14:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

All right, I will put it in the Nobel Prize article, and see what happens there. Case closed.Drelane (talk) 15:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Given that the article opened up with question the IQs of a branch of the Jewish people, I fail to see how it has anything to do with the Nobel Prize. This is not Wikipedia. We do not - even if what you claim is true, seeing as the article I deleted had no list of winners - need lists of winners. It s not on topic and if you add it again, I will remove it. Case certainly not closed. PsyGremlin^Fale! 15:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I am not claiming that Jews or anyone else has a higher IQ than other groups. Other people claim that. It seems to be pseudoscience and therefore a legitimate topic here.Drelane (talk) 15:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)