RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive38

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


LimpWrist reappeared after 4 years of inactivity to post this. RelaxingHotBath restored it after I removed it after a year and a half of inactivity and also unblocked LimpWrist claiming he's got sockpuppets that he's not already planning on burning. What the fuck?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

So what? Don't remove other users' comments. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
While the comment is beyond stupid and useless, this really isn't a coop case. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:20, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm bringing this to the coop because of malicious socking. LimpWrist's first edit in 4 years is accompanied by the edit summary "Dare I burn a sock? What the hay!" and RelaxingHotBath's unblock of LimpWrist included "How many socks do you think RW's greatest sock master evah has? Wanna play?" He's someone out to troll and don't fucking give me the "don't feed the trolls" garbage because he appeared out of nowhere.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
(EC) Someone having a legion of sockpuppets and threatening to unleash them all with the purpose of harrassing one particular user sounds like something potentially coop-relevant. Though admittedly, if it was just about that one dumb comment, this certainly shouldn't be a case. (talk) 23:25, 24 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Initial notes: (1) Sockpuppeting is not banned at RW. (2) Malicious trolling is. If this develops into an issue, it can be resolved. Thank you for bringing this to the coop rather than the blocklog. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 23:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Yeah. We have rules, but they sorta rest on not being subject to malicious sockpuppety exploitation of the variety of thing you can do but shouldn't. So when someone does it's a problem. God forbid the moderators have to decide and act on something, that'd resemble work - David Gerard (talk) 23:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

And what about DavidGerard's desysopping of RelaxingHotBath - was that an appropriate action? Blacke (talk) 23:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

It might just be a platypus, but it's walking and quacking like a duck. RelaxingHotBath's paucity of edits and sudden sweep of blocks and unblocks with a paucity of other account action was enough for me to deop the account while this case is proceeding. If there are soooooper-urgent blocks and unblocks for the sockmaster to make, they can use one of their other accounts I'd think - David Gerard (talk) 23:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
So, you are saying it is a temporary measure, and that at the closure of the case, you will restore it, unless there is a penalty vote to remove it? Blacke (talk) 23:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Given they've stated their excess number of socks below, it's really clear that any particular account doesn't actually need it - David Gerard (talk) 23:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

While sockpuppetry is important to take steps against, why remove the comment? It didn't seem all that bad. "Lusting for Anita", if that's meant to be a burn it sounds like it's taken from King James Bible or something. Just saying. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Ryulong comes across as really thinskinned. A single comment like that, and a brief edit war over its removal, is hardly harassment. Blacke (talk) 23:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
God, you gators are loathesome pieces of shit and you really need to just fuck off - David Gerard (talk) 23:41, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Gators? I'm confused now. Was that directed at me, David? *swoons* Jokes aside, could someone explain? I literally didn't understand that at all, kinda new here. Thank you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Just in case this isn't obvious to anyone, both LimpWrist and RelaxingHotBath seem to have been active & constructive contributors at one point, and after going inactive for a period, they suddenly re-appear as a troll. This seems to indicate that the accounts were somehow compromised by some sort of ... person (probably due to bad or re-used passwords) Carpetsmoker (talk) 01:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Sure looks like it to me. And this is something Gamergate does actually do - David Gerard (talk) 08:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
All the premises here are bullshit. Dissing Ryulong doesn't automatically make a user a "troll", nor a Gamergater, nor indicate that an account has been hacked, but everyone seems so willing to accept this nonsense at face value. Such are the ridiculous double standards & paranoia surrounding Ryulong & Gamergate. I'm tired of it. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
When Dragondragon is in full Dubya-mode ("either you with us me or you're with the terrorists GamerGators"), nobody can stop him, especially, when he has David on his side.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 12:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Weaseloid, we all know it's stupid but how far has arguing got anyone? Tielec01 (talk) 13:53, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Listen you idiots, he started out saying he was using a sock account to post the diss, used another account to unblock that first one with the veiled threat that he'd use other accounts to do the same. This isn't because he dissed me. This isn't paranoia. He said shit that I wanted looking into and you knuckleheads repeating the same garbage that "Ryulong is just as bad as the windmills he's tilting against" doesn't help for shit. Take your concern trolling elsewhere.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
He said shit that you wanted looking into? He said you were "lusting after Anita Sarkeesian". If this was said to anybody else it would be ignored completely or maybe get a witty response. Because it's you the response is deletion, blocking, coop case & conspiracy theories. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:02, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
I brought this up here because of his sockpuppet threats and not because of his fucking stupid post. As LimpWrist he wrote "Dare I burn a sock? What the hay!" in one edit summary and "How many socks do you think RW's greatest sock master evah has? Wanna play?" when unblocking one of his blocked accounts. That's why I brought up the coop case. Just because it came up because he was being a Gamergate wingnut in the process is immaterial.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Using a sockpuppet isn't against the rules here, & since your stock response to being criticised or teased is to delete comments, block accounts & try to raise a hate mob against whoever criticises or teases you, it's entirely unsurprising to me that somebody wishing to criticise or tease you would use a sock account to do so. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:20, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
If he's parroting the usual Gamergater/MRA white knighting bullshit then we don't really want him around here do we. Or do we want another Parogar situation?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Uh-huh. So you say you brought this up here because of his sockpuppet threats and not because of his fucking stupid post, & when I point out that sockpuppeting is irrelevant you double back & actually now it is because of his fucking stupid post. Do we have to keep going through this? ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
He made a stupid fucking post and at the same time said something about sockpuppeting at the same time and after I removed the stupid fucking post because it did nothing other than serve as an ad hom attack on me with the usual Gamergate and MRA fuckery. I removed it. He ultimately followed through with his sockpuppeting shit.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
So what? Don't remove other users' comments. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 04:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
If I may be so brash as to take a break from my attempt at retirement here, it is my opinion that the only crime they committed was in making threats to harass Ryulong. However, in my experience with Ryulong, he is such a fucking little shit that, yeah, him removing a harmless potshot at him was a total over-reaction. IT IS AGAINST THE RULES TO REMOVE THAT WHICH ISN'T OVERTLY HORRIBLE. If you ask me, the original comment, as much of a dick remarks as it was, was something that was harmless compared to shit that people like MarcusCicero had gotten away with without issue in the past. Honestly, it looks like another case where a troll was looking for a fight, and Ryulong took their bait hook, line and sinker. And, yes, Ryulong, you need to quit it with assuming that 1) everybody who is against you is somehow in support of gamergate and 2) that being pro-gamergate is grounds for deletion, locking of pages, and blocking; it's sure as fuck is not. Have you ever looked at the homepage? We WELCOME people who disagree with us, and your butthurt about how horrible and meanspirited people who you've gone out of the way to agitate are will never change that part of this website. Don't like it? Leave! Gooniepunk (talk) 07:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Yay, Dragondragon in full Dubya-mode again! Now teh chicken coop is gonna be as fun as the GG talk page!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 22:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
How the fuck is this "Dubya-mode"? How is anything I do "Dubya-mode"? How come I can't react to douchebaggery at my expense without you waltzing into these discussions and repeating this shit day in and day out? Has it occurred to you that a bunch of socially inept assholes have made me one of their targets because I didn't fall in line with their garbage a year ago because they're a bunch of anti-social shut-ins with no ounce of empathy in their bodies and will go after people that don't agree with them for the sake of winning in an argument? I'm sorry that I came here because I expected a better community support system than the shit I had to deal with on my own at Wikipedia for 9 years, particularly after I was banned because I didn't play nice with people who I knew were trying to abuse the system to suit their own needs. I'm sorry that I went up against the video game playing version of Scientologists and LaRouche cronies. I'm sorry that Shtrominer and Smerdis of Tlon and WatcherInTheDark wrote up the original Gamergate page and I liked how much it told the truth about their garbage without giving any lip service to their bullshit claims without framing them in that manner that I decided to join up here and add to it, because Wikipedia decided if I couldn't play nice with obvious trolls, and because I told them that these obvious trolls were going to exploit the system to attack me further based on the original restrictions they had in mind for me, that means I can't contribute to the English Wikipedia until at best this upcoming February. Fuck you Arisboch.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Yay, argumentum ad cellarium! And when I thought, you weren't getting any less inclined to use the brain before using the keyboard, you outdo yourself!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
One of these idiots was under FBI surveilance for weeks and they never saw him ever leave his family's house and in all of the news reports the family's neighbors weren't even aware that the guy lived at the house because they never saw him either. So what do you say to that?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Uh, Ryulong, Gators generally being anti-social shitbags is kind of apparent from the stuff they do. You don't need to go along with Arisboch's suggestion of you using the ad cellarium fallacy by painting someone spending their time within their own residence as something incriminating. >.> (talk) 23:54, 26 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
He only brought it up because I said "anti-social shut-in". And in this case the shoe fits.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Arisboch isn't doing this out of genuine concerns, Ryulong. He just wants to rile you up. No need to indulge him. (talk) 23:35, 26 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Well, he's whining about being b& from Wikipedia for being grade A trollbait and now he's being just that here (or just a whiny bitch, it's not that I was trolling him or anything).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
I shouldn't have been banned from Wikipedia because I pissed off a bunch of idiot cultist fucks who think women are trying to steal video games away from them by calling one of them a name on my Twitter account and then they decided to make me not quite public enemy number 1 (that designation is cycled between a handful of women) by using the same bullshit Internet arguing tactics as every other NRX idiot.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
We very much want people who disagree with our views here, it's why we kept Rob around despite him being a CP Sysop who was abusing the fuck out of life there. Whether we want pro-GGers here (due to how they tend to act) is more debatable, but just because they disagree isn't a reason to want them gone. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


Ryulong, you so funny. Had you not violated RW rules and removed my talkpage comment in the first place and then blocked my account after one goddamn harmless joke, I wouldn't have even bothered engaging in a war with you. Ultimately, I do have numerous socks on RW, so if Ryulong want to continue abusing his powers and removing talkpage comments and blocking accounts for little to no reason, I can continue to burn them if I feel the need. Or, we can consider this another case of Ryulong's penchant for creating Streisand Effects and move along without issue. RelaxingHotBath (talk) 23:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry for the explicit purpose of being a huge dick is not doing you any favours here - David Gerard (talk) 23:41, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
How big a dick is he really being, with a single comment obviously in jest? Blacke (talk) 23:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
X did something wrong, therefore all my actions are justified. Right. (talk) 23:43, 24 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
This is a gator you're talking to - David Gerard (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Damn Gators slandering the honourable name of alligators. :/ (talk) 23:47, 24 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
I'm not a gator, I'm a crocodile. Blacke (talk) 23:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Wild guess: it means gamergater? Still confused from before. Thanks. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
David Gerard is convinced I'm a GamerGater (yet I don't consider myself to be one), and therefore everything I say should be immediately ignored, for no reason but that. Blacke (talk) 23:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Ah, DG and Ryulong don their foilhats again. Rest assured, I am not a "gator." In fact, I hate video games altogether. Let's just say, instead, I'm somebody sick of Ryulong. RelaxingHotBath (talk) 23:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
(EC) You immediately jumping to the defense of a self-admitted abusive 'sock master' doesn't exactly speak well for you, though. :/ (talk) 23:56, 24 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
As far as abuse goes, his comment was pretty weak. I'm sure even you could do better abuse than that. Blacke (talk) 23:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
My own humble level of abusiveness aside, this isn't so much about the one comment than it is about the threat of using a sockpuppet army to harrass Ryulong. (talk) 00:00, 25 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Not to harrass Ryulong,you idiot; to get around his abusive blocks. RelaxingHotBath (talk) 00:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
And where did I say I was an 'abusive' sock master? I have many socks, but if you look through their histories, none of them were abusive per se. RelaxingHotBath (talk) 00:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
You admitted you were going to use them abusively in the same unblock reason as where you said you were a 'sock master', silly. (talk) 00:14, 25 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Because I was being blocked abusively, yes. That, friend, is fighting fire with fire. RelaxingHotBath (talk) 00:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
You're not being blocked abusively. You've admitted that you are here just to fuck with Ryulong, not to add anything of use to the wiki, not to actually participate, but just to shitpost against Ryulong. Well, sonny-jim, that can be effectively dealt with. --Castaigne (talk) 00:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Ah, Castaigne. I was wondering where my other foil hat was hiding at. Let's put it this way, if the Wiki wants to pursue this, I, too, will pursue this. If the Wiki chooses not to, then it ends here and goes no further. RelaxingHotBath (talk) 00:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Nah, I don't believe that. I don't believe that at all. You'll just sock again and again and again and again and try the same old tactics and new ones and blah, blah, blah. It's a goal for you guys over at KiA, to get him thrown off of here or cause a mental breakdown or send a Baphomet rape-squad to fuck him up or whatever the shit it is this week. It'll never "end here and go no further". GG has a vendetta. Ryulong is the enemy. GG must destroy the enemy in order to obtain Gamergate Victory Mode. You can SAY otherwise, but your actions don't match. --Castaigne (talk) 01:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Ryulong is not the enemy; groupthinkis. And I am doing a great job expoiting it. RelaxingHotBath (talk) 01:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
In my view one hostile/threatening comment a user makes in response to a block s/he feels is unwarranted is not grounds for discipline. If they don't really mean it I suggest letting it go.---Mona- (talk) 00:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
There's been little (if any) indication that they didn't mean it, though. (talk) 00:31, 25 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Well, my view was and is entirely conditional on not meaning it.---Mona- (talk) 00:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I've been a heavy Twitter use and multiple accounts (socks) had not been a problem there until some started using them purely to inundate certain Tweeps with harassment. That kind of bad faith, disruptive bullshit should be disallowed on any decent Internet site.---Mona- (talk) 00:50, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I see. You're going to use a sockpuppet army to harass a user here?
Well, one can take care of that the old-fashioned way. --Castaigne (talk) 00:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Or can they? Do you want to test my resolve and continue to pursue this, or do you want to leave my potshot up and watch me disappear? That is the Wiki's decision. RelaxingHotBath (talk) 01:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
We've weathered worse than some little shit who wants to threaten us with socks. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
If I choose to pursue it, son, it won't be on the wiki that I do so. --Castaigne (talk) 01:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Charming, to be sure. But I know for a fact you are no threat to me. I came to exploit RationalWiki's groupthink, and I am doing a marvelous job. RelaxingHotBath (talk) 01:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep thinking that. Makes it easier for me. --Castaigne (talk) 01:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Also, really, ultimatum? *Dalek voice* ULTIMATUM DENIED! --Castaigne (talk) 01:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Can't someone just block his IP? If he uses Proxies, I know ways they can be intercepted. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 01:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
It's important to acknowledge that Paravant does do a lot of mopping here that no one else seems especially inclined to do. He's pissed me off a few times, but on the whole (NOT A VOW TO ALWAYS DO SO) I usually defer to his judgment because I think he merits it. In this case I'm not inclined to take the time to get into the nuts and bolts of the controversy and would generally just: what Paravant says.---Mona- (talk) 01:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm inclined to do whatever most of the people want, We just gotta make a show of not giving into the demands of terrorists and all too, you know. The principle of the matter. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I've abused Paravant (and previous incarnations) a fair few times over the years, and will probably continue to do so. However, he has grown into the moderator role, and, apart from a terminal case of not being able to ignore trolls, is actually a half-decent moderator. Also; can't we give in to the demands of terrorists just once, and see what happens? Tielec01 (talk) 01:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Still waiting on Obama to declare us the new headquarters of Islam in all his weak willed muslim loving capitulations to dem terrorists. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
What are the requirements to run for Mod? I think Avenger should look into it. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 01:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
*facepalm* (Also, this really isn't the most apt place to ask that.) (talk) 01:46, 25 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Having an account that is three months old and was, after getting Sysop, shot down to Vandalbinned is likely a non-starter for that. Maybe next years election. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I guess[edit]

We are gonna Jazz, if you're gonna threaten us. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Why was that so hard? <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 01:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I can only speak for myself, but I welcome the august rule of Emperor RelaxingHotBath. In their wisdom I know the Emperor will have concluded that they may need a humble servant for the administration of the mundane day-to-day wiki matters which, in their banality, would only serve to bore the Emperor. If only such a suitably loyal and devoted sycophant was at hand to perform this lowly function...Tielec01 (talk) 01:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
August? It's almost October. (talk) 01:31, 25 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

Unblock, let him sock[edit]

I want to revert and block people, let him unleash his armies of socks. What's the most he can do? Unblock him besides the ones you just blocked. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 01:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

He does still have a lot of unblocked socks left, you know, going by his earlier statements. (talk) 01:37, 25 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
I question the truthfulness of his statements. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 01:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Well he's no fun if his statements were lies.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I have a few socks myself, perhaps our socks can battle for supremacy? I, with great conviction, promise you my socks are without a doubt the master race. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 01:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


Castaigne, referring to "taking care of things the old-fashioned way" then said this: "If I choose to pursue it, son, it won't be on the wiki that I do so." This kind of nasty, knuckle-dragger threat should be unacceptable to the mob.---Mona- (talk) 02:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Too vague of a threat. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 02:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Too vague for what? For saying: "bullshit"? That' not remotely too vague for me.---Mona- (talk) 02:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Castaigne was being too vague, you dolt. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 02:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
It's thuggish, stupid and indicative of being the toughest man on the internet, however, impotent threats rarely go beyond amusing; so I wouldn't get too worked up about it. Tielec01 (talk) 02:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
"Dolt?!" Why, I'm hurt beyond uttering. But I reaffirm this kind of thing merits being called out as bullshit.---Mona- (talk) 02:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I was not attempting to hurt you as you sarcastically imply, I was annoyed by you. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 02:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
This isn't the first time Castaigne has made threats on people's (usually Gators) physical well-being. Many of them not vague at all. (talk) 03:14, 25 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
You're correct, he also has done something similar to Tielec01. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Tielec01#Village_idiot I just added a little thing on threatening to the guidelines which has not been opposed. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 03:17, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Hahaha, what. What's with these big man "taking it off wiki" comments from Castaigne? I've got absolutely no horse in this race, but - why even say that? It just looks so facepalm to read, no matter who's in the right. I'd imagine that reliably getting that kind of utterly ridiculous reaction out of Castaigne would basically motivate (to the trolls) any long term trolling efforts towards him. That's a reward right there, if you're a troll. That's basically the equivalent of prank ringing a doorbell, hoping for any kind of reaction, with the old coot in the house shaking his fist at you while yelling old-timey absurdities, comically throwing his shoe high up into a tree out of toothless rage while hilariously sprinting after you like Goofy on ice with only one shoe on. And he's nowhere near catching you, and you laugh your ten year old ass off. If you were ringing doorbells, that's something like the one reaction that may drive you to not stop doing so, ever. Again, not taking sides. But, like, we're discussing in text here. Anyone implying hurr durr outside the wiki like they can't use their big boy/big girl words and have to resort to spade-dueling in the sandpit deserves to be laughed out the room. Seriously. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Errr...you do know Castaigne's history, right? <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (administrator) (system operator) (talk) 11:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I do not. I'm utterly uninformed, as a matter of fact. Not even misinformed - I just pulled up a chair here, I'm Jon Snow, I know nothing. I've no idea. I'd love to be informed, though. I mean, I'd certainly be willing to clarify my statement based on whatever details this story might contain. I was just saying that as a general rule - that may or may not apply to this situation at all - people going all wannafightaboutit are silly. But please, don't take this is an me being informed as to the context of this... whatever it is. I'm not. Though I'd like to be, I suppose. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Three words: For the watch. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Castaigne .... Speaks for itself. Be sure to read all of it. Get the popcorn out first. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (administrator) (system operator) (talk) 11:53, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Omg, I did read this at one point! I just had forgotten it was Castaigne's talk page. Wow. He comes off as, uh... Yeah. I'm not surprised that this is the guy who would go full needle dick and threaten about "off wiki" solutions to arguments in text. Lmao. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
<badasson>The only thing is, I welcome online threats from most people. The majority are full of shit, the rest I'm ready for. </badassoff> <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (administrator) (system operator) (talk) 12:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
The majority are full of shit, the rest I'm ready for.- Kosterortiizbrock
That's exactly what I always say. --Castaigne (talk) 15:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
The only appropriate response to online bluster is to call the bluff. They rarely, if ever, take it up. Of course, it should be mentioned that one of my favorite games is DEFCON. --Castaigne (talk) 15:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
LOL, how many people did Mona to manage to piss off this time?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 13:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I am a knuckle-dragger. When have I ever claimed otherwise? --Castaigne (talk) 15:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Mona, Arisboch, Avenger, et al.[edit]

Jesus Christ I've spent the last month hoping this wouldn't have to go to the coop, but literally nothing is changing: Endless Edit Wars and circular argumentation on talk pages across the wiki. Negotiations have failed, the mob has to find an actual solution to this issue. No links need be provided for this. Anybody got any ideas?--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Wait a second, the last edit war around the Zionism article didn't involve Avenger.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 00:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, but this is clearly about the overall shitfest that's been going on, not just the latest edit war. (talk) 00:38, 27 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
My idea is to allow footnotes on talk pages. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 00:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Pfft. (talk) 00:40, 27 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
I 2nd that.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 00:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
My original idea was to look for a general consensus among RW contributors regarding Zionism. Though I probably should've turned it into a vote and given people a couple pre-chewed opinions to choose from. If we have to do that every time Arisboch or Avenger cite some arbitrary criterion to justify edit warring to remove valid content, it's gonna get kinda silly though. Should I create a header "Does blood & soil nationalism necessarilly involve racial theories?" in the bar right now or is the answer apparent enough except to Arisboch? (talk) 00:50, 27 September 42015 AQD (UTC) 00:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
At this point i'm just looking for a permanent solution, not a temporary one. This circus has gone on long enough and has now doubled back to its origin, --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Wow...diese Scheiße ist Ernst <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 00:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Hopefully not too permanent... >.>
But if you wanna settle the conflict decisively, the only realistic option I see is to pick what you think is the 'reasonable' side and disempower the other side. (talk) 01:01, 27 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
I would consider it extremly impressive if you manage to find a "pernament" solution for this. I mean, everything related to the Israel/Palestinian topic turns to shit on all sites (See "hummus" on Wikipedia). There ought to be some sort of law for this. Carpetsmoker (talk) 01:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
If West Wing can find a solution to the Middle-East Crisis, RationalWiki can find one between the RWZOG and the RLO.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Simply side with the ones not causing edit wars, showing rationality and utilizing good arguments. It's clear who this would be. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 01:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
But I don't -want- to impose a solution onto them by my own decision. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
If you or someone doesn't, bad and unreasonable behavior is rewarded and tbose who worked hard in good faith are punished.---Mona- (talk) 01:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, it's in the coop now, so it won't be solely your decision. (talk) 01:21, 27 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
In theory it still could be, depending on what people want to happen. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Particularly if no actual solution comes of this. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, good point. (talk) 01:40, 27 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

Nuke from orbit[edit]

Throw our hands up and delete all Zionism-related articles for fear they may cause controversy. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 00:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

FOBSWikipedia ain't kosher according to a number of treaties, though.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 00:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
We here in America don't give no shits about your treaties, the world cannot live without us if it chooses to try to embargo.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
How are we possibly arguing over my goddamn joke suggestion FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 01:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
They're aren't, they're in fact taking the piss out of your joke suggestion. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 01:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I once floated it as my solution if we couldn't find a solution. Thats two votes already fuzzy!--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
So if enough YEC edit warriors come and mess with our articles, we'll stop treating the topic altogether? I hope not. >.> (talk) 01:04, 27 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Yes! Controversy is inherently bad, which is why wikis are set up to be run like authoritarian state -- with a single purpose and voice. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 01:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I am glad we agree on this Fuzzy, you will be well rewarded in the coming culling. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
So, we let Arisboch -- employing wholly unreasonable and arbitrary criteria to reject bona fide sources for a fact he dislikes -- cause an edit war, and when that happens, we give him his way be deleting an article I worked my ass of on, and which is on mission. I see.---Mona- (talk) 01:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
It's just a joke suggestion, Mona. No need to worry. (talk) 01:23, 27 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

Topic ban[edit]

One option: ban one or both sides from editing any topic-relevant content for, say, 3 months. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 01:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

False equivalence. Topic ban users whose behaviour justifies it, not all interested parties. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 09:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I'd support this, though I'm skeptical about the feasibility of implementing a topic ban and also kind of doubt whether a topic ban alone'd really solve the conflict. (talk) 15:34, 27 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

Neutral rewrite plus lock[edit]

Rewrite the topic-relevant content to be as neutral and purely descriptive as possible and lock pages to moderator edit for, say, 3 months. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 01:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

It's pretty neutral now. There's only a touch of snark in it because I felt really controversial topics aren't proper for it. The problem literally is that to state the facts -- just facts -- is inherently unpleasant for one side and not for the other.---Mona- (talk) 01:21, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep talking[edit]

Nothing wrong with good debate. For, say, 3 months, and ever and ever. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 01:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Make the mods decide on a solution[edit]

Make the 3 (or 4) remaining mods hold a conclave and release white or black smoke, alerting one side to the outcome. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:23, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Do the mods, whoever they are, understand the problem? Look, how can a user be allowed to get away with reverting and demanding references, five reputable ones are inserted, he finds bullshit objections to those, and over the objections of THREE other users still keeps reverting. He can do that time and time again unless it is made clear it is unacceptable behavior.---Mona- (talk) 01:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Paravant is the only mod who gives a fuck in this case. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 01:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
David cares but largely seems to want to stay out of getting directly involved, while Sophie... who ever knows with her. Khant may not even know what is going on--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Paravant is the only mod who I don't completely loathe, and wouldn't be okay with making a single decision. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 01:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Yay me, I guess? --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
There are times when a decision must be made. To my mind, the decision has to centrally involve making clear that one user's behavior in constantly reverting over the objections of thee other good faith users is not acceptable. If that doesn't happen, then that behavior is rewarded and there is no obstacle to its being repeated.---Mona- (talk) 01:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't care about Israel-Palestine, but I think I have citable opinions on who's being a huge fucking dick here - David Gerard (talk) 21:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Don't because mods = literally Hitler[edit]

Fight the man! FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 01:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Nope, mods = literally Muruta Azrael[edit]

All hail to ZAFT!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 01:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


There could be a consensus on who is at fault? No. Ok. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 01:30, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Um, unless people are entirely led by a partisan position, there certainly should be such a consensus possible. One user reverted language he disliked and demanded references. One was given, he didn't accept it; two were given, then four, including a report published by Brandeis. ChrisAmiss then provided a fifth, a book by a reputable historian. But this one user rejected all five sources and persisted in reverting over the objections of three other users. Can that possibly be accepted behavior at this wiki?---Mona- (talk) 01:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Arisboch? <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 01:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I would presume so.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Arisboch.---Mona- (talk) 01:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

(Get consensus to) De-op and Sysoprevoke Avenger and Arisboch[edit]

Since I don't think a topic ban is a realistic option. (And this is probably more than appropriate either way.) (talk) 01:45, 27 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

You don't need to be a sysop to revert a damn article, unless the article is sysop-locked. This is not a problem of me being a sysop or not.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 01:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
That didn't stop Avenger from losing his Sysop for edit-waring constantly in bad faith.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
If you're not a sysop, though, temporarily sysop-locking stuff would then become an easily accessible solution if you choose to engage in edit wars. (talk) 01:53, 27 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
I vote yes.---Mona- (talk) 01:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't entirely know if I'd put them in Sysoprevoke, partially because I cannot understand what the hell it does.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I vote yes, if their actions can be solidly proven with good examples instead of ranting and shit. I'm not taking an anti-Arisboch or anti-Avenger stance, just so that's on record. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 01:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
It disables sysop powers and can only be removed by a mod (I think). (talk) 01:50, 27 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
What's the diff to simply de-sysopping? So that even an other sysop couldn't grant a user in the sysoprevoke sysop right?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 01:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
It is a tool created so that higher-rights users can actually enforce decisions without being undone by some sysop not liking it. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
de-sysoping worked well with Avenger. It allows articles to be locked so only sysops can edit. That means only the reasonable users can edit and I think most of us are sysops so it is a restraint only on the very new or the very unreasonable. It's a good idea.---Mona- (talk) 01:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I hate pages being protected instead of the troublemakers being dealt with. Very few pages are protected, the most common is autoconfirmed IIRC which is reasonable to some high-traffic pages. To have a long-term sysop protected page is something I protest with all of my being. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 01:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
It'd only be locked temporarily to defuse edit wars. But blocking edit warriors when they engage in it would also be an option, of course. (talk) 02:01, 27 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Well, de-sysoping did the trick with Avenger. He could still edit other articles. Doesn't blocking keep people out across the wiki? (that may be justified, but I'd like to know what this entails.)---Mona- (talk) 02:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Blocking a user is not what I want to do.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 02:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Yep, blocking means they can't edit anything for the duration of the block (except their talkpage, sometimes). On RW, the convention is to only block people for short durations. I wouldn't propose it as a long-term solution. (talk) 02:08, 27 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Obviously (or hopefully) no one comes online each day with the intention to block users, but some people can't be reasoned with. I think short-term blocks should be applied if the edit war causers (Mona, Avenger, Arisboch, whichever is agreed upon to be the one doing is) to stop them from...edit warring. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 02:15, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Fedora, please note that Arisboch has not denied his behavior. No misbehavior has been attributed to me. In any event, I vote for de-sysoping Arisboch.---Mona- (talk) 02:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Can we use the progression of blocks? --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 02:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
That would make sense. The first time they do it, a couple years, do it again a few decades, if they continue maybe a century or two, etc. I'm sure they'd be discouraged long before the blocks got too severe. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 02:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I blocked somebody for a decade about a year ago.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 02:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Fedora, please observe that Arisboch has not denied his misbehavior while no misbehavior has been attributed to me. Anyway, I vote for de-sysoping, but if the majority prefer a block I won't make a fuss. However, it would have to be of sufficient length to equal a deterrent or we are all going to be right back here again.---Mona- (talk) 02:21, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Yea, you kinda already said that. I wasn't responding to it because I'm not too eager for Arisboch, a good editor, to be de-sysoped. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 02:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I do understand, and I'm honestly not "eager" for it, either. But there have to be consequences for what he did or there is no reason for him not to continue that behavior once the protection lifts, or even at other articles. [shrug]---Mona- (talk) 02:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Theyis right, the odds of this ending without a de-opping are pretty low.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 02:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps, a mod warning on his talk page? He might not take it too seriously, but you can at least try. Not everything has to be such heavy-handed force. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 02:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
What is life without heavy handed force?--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 02:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Seriously, consider it before you consider de-sysoping them. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 02:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
A mod "warning" wouldn't be worth the paper it wouldn't be written on. He's not stupid and persisted in that behavior steadily and over much time. Stern letters are not known to take care of things.---Mona- (talk) 02:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not taking your word for that, thanks. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 02:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
You don't have to. I'm talking facts. Facts reflected in the FR and the talk page. And, this is a situation where he has seen the behavior repeatedly described and has not denied it where one would reasonably expect a falsely accused person would do so.---Mona- (talk) 02:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Not that, how do you know a warning would not work? <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 02:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Really Fedora, WTF? Arisboch had weeks and weeks to work on a version of the article in a manner he preferred. He did not -- asked why he glibly told Paravant maybe he's just too lazy to. No, what he does instead is take a version I worked super hard on and revert incessantly in a totally unacceptable way. But you don't want him dealt with harshly. I see.---Mona- (talk) 02:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Do I do not enough to stroke your sense of unwarranted self-importance?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 03:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I disagree. The mantra of the moderator is to do as little as possible to meet the responsibility of their mod position. I think if Arisboch is warned by a mod in a serious manner, that he will be deterred due to mods having more authority than regular users, the fact he doesn't appear to be in as much of a conflict with Paravant as he is with you, and also because it would come out of an agreement on the coop, which is not something to be taken lightly. I can't help but find it disturbing, if not angering that you, Mona, seem pretty bent on getting him de-sysoped.<-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 02:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
She wants to effect a purge among the RW sysops. Since Avenger was de-sysoped by Paravant for unrelated issues, she eager to see me gone, too.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 03:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I was elected on the promise to do the least Modding I needed and plan to keep that promise. If this can be resolved without De-opping anybody, awesome! If not, sad, but alright. / Avenger was De-opped for his own mistakes, and I welcome him learning from them and getting sysop back. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 03:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Arisboch, that gave me flashbacks of ROTS. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 03:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Calling one additional user being de-opped after Avenger losing his powers a "purge" seems a tad exaggerative. (talk) 03:06, 27 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
The New Order of RW (NOR) will be a safe and prosperous future for our wiki, Koster. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 03:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Fedora, I utterly refuse to be made the bad guy here, I've done nothing wrong. Arisboch has. You want to use "stern words" to take care of it. I actually can't believe it -- and I don't believe for one fucking moment that Arisboch would do anything but chortle at such a "warning." Your insinuations about me for wanting manifestly bad behavior appropriately dealt with are insulting. I have done nothing to warrant it.---Mona- (talk) 03:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm trying to make this end in a way that conflicts with your de-sysop Arisboch mentality, your defensiveness is quite telling. Your suggestions may be unneeded if the warning is successful.<-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 03:13, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
To be honest, though, Arisboch has been rather dismissive of Paravant and his mod status on multiple occasions. (talk) 03:16, 27 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
As have I. The severity of the situation however is nonstandard. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 03:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Oh FFS. I don't have a "mentality." I want to be able to work on the Zionism article without Arisboch's outrageous behavior. I came to RW not to mod, not to sysop (except to the extent I must share a community burden), not to do anything but edit articles. He is now making that impossible. There is nothing wrong for me wanting that to end. I've had it with this. I won't be insulted by you with your "telling" bullshit. You all "resolve" this -- or not -- as you see fit.---Mona- (talk) 03:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
So you say, but your actions tell a different story. What you want will most likely happen, I'm suggesting a less heavy-handed attempt at dealing with this which you are refusing to give consideration. Try to stop with the "Oh I'm so insulted" crap. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 03:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Shall we wait to see how they choose to respond and go from there? --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 03:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I approve of this course of action, but others may disagree. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 03:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
My "actions?!" I DID NOT make the de-sysoping proposal. I merely supported it after others did. Jesus on a crutch, and so that causes you to arrogantly spew bullshit impugning my motives and character. I'm sure this will break your heart: I don't like you. I've had my fill of overweeningly arrogant men. So go slap your pal on the wrist for misbehavior *I* did not make him commit. It means he gets away with it and something like it will happen again (and again) from him.---Mona- (talk) 03:29, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
"I DID NOT make the de-sysoping proposal. I merely supported it after others did." Yes, you did support it. You also wanted to use it without any attempts to warn them, and quite aggressively pushed that position. To the rest of your shit, fuck you too. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 03:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
In the event Aris does agree and later backs out, punishment will likely follow Mona. His not being punished now is reliant on him keeping his word, afterall. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 03:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Finally, if he's only going to get a fucking "warning," could it at least be a probation contingent on his not reverting any of my edits for a month? Or editing the Zionism page at all? And Paravant, keeping WHAT word?---Mona- (talk) 03:34, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
In writing I am not a very formal person, really big on being against it actually. So these moments where I am being formal are actually me being fairly serious about all this. Ideally Arisboch can understand what I am asking him to stop, and if he is considering it but is unsure, he can ask me to clarify. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 03:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Fedora's meanspirited crap notwithstanding, ALL I WANT is to be able to work in relative peace in collaboration with other reasonable people. End of.---Mona- (talk) 03:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

If you paid attention to the state of current affairs, you'd know Paravant left them a message which he encouraged them to heed. If he does the actions you describe, Paravant will take action against him. I find it funny how you call me not wanting to de-sysop editors you don't like "meanspirited crap", especially when you pretty much escalated this. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 03:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
"I find it funny how you call me not wanting to de-sysop editors you don't like "meanspirited crap", " If you find it "funny" it's because that's not reality. It's not your position; it's how you characterized me for mine.---Mona- (talk) 03:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
You haven't been very un-escalatory yourself, mister! *makes a very serious face* (talk) 03:41, 27 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Yea, your actions in no way lead me to that conclusion. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 03:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
There it is again, that "actions" horsehit. And previously we've also had my words being "telling" about me. That you don't see how asshatish and arrogant that is is, well, telling. It means we are not going to get along. (I know, it makes you cry.)---Mona- (talk) 03:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Shall we see how many times you proposed and pressed for his de-sysoping, to show you the base of my statements? <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 03:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Fedora, can you please stop stirring this storm in a teacup? Mona, you don't need to give him more fuel by replying. Let's all just settle down please. (talk) 03:53, 27 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
"Mona, you don't need to give him more fuel by replying." Yes. It's never good to enable one's abuser, you are right.---Mona- (talk) 03:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Piss off. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 03:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Avenger should never have been sysoped in the first place, in my opinion, as he's never really stopped being disruptive. If Arisboch's behaviour is much the same as Avenger's then he should lose sysop status too. If the same behaviour continues, I suggest a choice between a topic ban & the vandal bin. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 10:29, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Weaseloid, I agree with you except about a topic ban. Aside from the fact that Zionism is missional, and that it ties into myriad other missional topics, Avenger explicitly wants that and I suspect Arisboch does as well. It would be rewarding their bad behavior. The facts do not support their strong commitment to Zionism and so they want the facts suppressed. That's what much of Avenger's bad behavior, and all of Arisboich's, has been about. RW now has two people -- me and ChrisAmiss -- who are deeply knowledgeable on the topics they want only a propagandist gloss on (if anything is written at all), and our combined and active presence is not going to suit them one bit. But if this site is to take advantage of my talents and Chris's, their antics must be corralled.---Mona- (talk) 12:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I mean a topic ban for users who are editing these pages disruptively, namely AvengeroftheBoN and Arisboch, not a sitewide ban on the topics. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 13:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Oh yes. I suggested that. It went nowhere once it was decided a "stern letter" would be sufficient. (Which isn't even stern: Its' "C'mon Dude, Willya please knock it off?" pffft Well, anyway, I'm going to continue with edits on the protected article (on an elsewhere version) and they'll be ready once the protection is lifted.---Mona- (talk) 16:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
well its been ignored so de-oping aris to solve the issue is now my preferred solution. I was asked to try diplomacy one last time and I did. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 17:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I didn't observe whatever it was he did this time, but of course he did.---Mona- (talk) 18:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


I think this is the best solution. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 03:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

You don't need money -- just tell them that you're a RW mod. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 03:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
You're right, they'll feel so bad for me they can't help but give me the alcohol for free. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 03:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Pfft, Alcohol is so cliché. Why not try some LSD? (talk) 03:51, 27 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Never internet while tripping! Some whiskey in your coffee otoh… *hands over the whiskey* sorry Paravant, but I don't share my coffee/life-force. (I have no idea if I should even be commenting here, if not, can we just pretend I popped by to offer a round?) Argenti Aertheri (talk) 04:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't drink coffee, cannot stand the taste of it or energy drinks in general. Not that I need them, i just generate energy at a whim. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 04:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I can donate some whiskey, but, do you mind if it's kidney-filtered? CorruptUser (talk) 04:34, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I will actually buy you some alcohol, if you really need it.
I do have a serious suggestion, if you want to hear it. --Castaigne (talk) 07:30, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Kickstarter is sooooo 2013. Patreon is where it's at. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png So you're telling me cocaine comes from scorpions? 19:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Last 5000 edits as RationalWiki[edit]


--larron (talk) 09:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Is this even[edit]

An actual Coop case? 'Cause this seems like an invitation for gossip and pointless shitflinging more than anything else. Even by Coop standards. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png Yo man, I got a Bust A Nut. 12:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't even know what this is. This whole thing seems incredibly stupid to me. I was going to say "asinine" but that's too fancy of a word for what I just read up there. ArcticVixen (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm a bit at a loss as to what you guys are referring to. The little storm in a teacup between two users in the De-op and Sysoprevoke section? The overall Zionism shitfest has had its nasty moments for sure, but as far as this coop case is concerned, I'm not sure where the need to decry this being brought to the coop as 'shitflinging' or 'too nasty to even use the word asinine' comes from. If "This is a nasty turd, I'm not touching it for one bit. Bye!" is gonna be the reaction of all uninvolved users, then I guess the final decision will fall on Paravant, perhaps sooner rather than later. *shrugs* (talk) 15:22, 27 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
The coop exists to solve issues that wont solve themselves. The Zionism issue is not solving itself. Thus yes, its a coop case. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 17:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
What the hell is it with this Zionism shitfest? I know Arisboch, Paravant, Avenger, and Mona are somehow fighting over some Zionism crap, so what is it? Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 20:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt
Well, speaking of gossip and shitflinging... *points to the section below* (talk) 21:37, 27 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

Ban Mona, de-mod Paravant[edit]

None of these problems existed prior to the arrival of one Mona. And Paravant has abused his mod powers more thaen once to ensure his point of view by moderator fiat. Be it on the identation of the contributions to a talk page by other users (including their free decision to use outdent or don't use it) the use of footnotes in user-space, and of course the views of users on topics so diverse as Jeremy Corbyn, Zionism or Apartheid. The solution appears to be abundantly clear: Ban Mona, restore Zionism to a skeleton and start over from there (unless consensus to not cover emerges, as Zionism is not really covered by any part of our mission statement but the last clause). And of course de-mod Paravant. His abuses have now reached a point that him having an agenda (or being on a power-trip) appears to be the most reasonable explanation for it. And of course a strong indication of a dislike of my person. And that of Arisboch, who happens to be a Jew. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think, that me being a Jew plays any significant role in the motives of either Paravant or Mona (their posts did not gave me any indication of that and I'd like to think "in dubio, pro reo" in this case... As of now) and, to be honest, I couldn't give less of a flying fuck about their motives, but I agree with the rest to 100%: The edit wars around the Israel/Palestine topic did begin with Mona joining and, more importantly, Paravant (and, to an albeit lesser degree, Fake-BoN (nobody can memorize this goddamn numbers!!!)) supporting her and Chris in twisting the Zionism and Apartheid-articles into unabashed anti-Israeli propaganda. I don't think, that Avenger's suggestion has much of a chance in being accepted here, unfortunately, but I support it hereby.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Lol. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 20:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Dumb.--ADtalkModerator 20:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Very dumb! Scream!! (talk) 21:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
So y'all consider everything Mona and Paravant did to be just fine? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Interesting and clever! You present the proposition that Mikal should be de-modded, another user should be banned, and an article be deleted and restarted. When people laugh at this proposal, you ask them a tangential question to which only some would agree, given that you're lumping in two users and asking a sweeping statement. If people agree with you in this second regard, it creates an appearance of acquiescence, thereby partially legitimizing your initial proposal.
You didn't do this quite that intentionally, of course.
I decline to answer your question on the grounds that its veracity is not the issue under dispute. I renew my contemptuous summary of your initial proposal, instead: dumb.--ADtalkModerator 21:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
To be clear, you yourself indicated a similar solution for the Zionism article. That's where I got the idea from. As to what Mona and Paravant did, maybe I should explain a bit more in detail... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:21, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I proposed restarting the article, yes. Not the other things.
Anyway, suffice to say, this isn't happening.--ADtalkModerator 21:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Alleged stuff by Avenger hey that rhymes
  • Threatened to report us to her "journo-buddies".
  • Posted stuff on Twitter decrying the supposed Zionist bias of RW
  • Had a coop case where banning her was seriously considered with me - of all people - actually voting to retain her, as I hoped her to be open to reason
  • Insists on edit warring over Bullshit like inserting that Zionism is blood and soil or the Al Quds day is not anti-Israel
  • This list is incomplete Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  • More thaen once: Locked a page in one state (usually the one proposed by Mona) in order to "resolve" an edit war while claiming to be neutral
  • General unpleasantness and openly admitted dislike for several users "informs" his decisions
  • Vandalized the talk pages of other users due to something that was not even discussed as a proposed policy at the time
  • Penalized a user for reverting said vandalism
  • De-sysoped two users who "happen to" disagree with him on Zionism without getting even a semblance of consensus to back him up
  • Vandal binned one user for daring to revert his vandalization of his talk page
  • This list is incomplete. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
You were desysoped for not deserving the rights yet, it has nothing to do with zionism.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


Everyone here has made /r/kotakuinaction and /r/wikiinaction very happy. Keep up the good work, and ensure that other knuckle-dragging reactionary website-stalkers can get their necessary schadenfreude boners. FuzzyCatPotato of the Bare Kites (talk/stalk) 02:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

My stance on these groups is: they could be literally masturbating to the Coop archives regarding Ryulong/Zionism/whatever shitstorm du jour and it should not in any way affect our policies or decisions. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png Everybody betray me! I fed up with this world! 02:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Meh, it seems to me from the very articles/posts you mention that they have little to no understanding of what happens here. If consensus cannot be achieved in the Coop, it is archived and we move on. *shrugs* These brotangos are not worth bothering with, since they lack the vigor necessary to enforce their dictates. --Castaigne (talk) 03:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Concur with the above. These people are even less worth paying any attention to than ED or MPC - David Gerard (talk) 09:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
What's Reddit again and how does it affect RationalWiki? (Postscript: for whatever reason I enjoy reading some of their responses to us, which mostly consists of yelling "Fallacy!!!1one" combined with ableist remarks.) Withoutaname (talk) 09:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
What the fuck has anything on Reddit got to do with RW? Haven't they recently had enough trouble of their own to be bothering with our little spat (caused, incidentally, by a small but vociferous minority (2) of contributorsthat's how to do a talk page footnote - or this is)? Scream!! (talk) 12:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Those reddits are undeniably shit; my salty point was that people needed to calm the hell down about some edit war. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 13:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I hate to tell you, but it's unlikely that the Zionism edit wars will cease until one side or the other gets their way. Which probably means both should go to hell. --Castaigne (talk) 14:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
And yet wikipedia survives that kinda contentiousness without going off the deep end. It'll be fine. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I wonder how much this new section you added made them even happier. >.> (talk) 16:05, 28 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
We're bringing joy to the world, even our enemies. Nothing wrong with that. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Hasn't Reddit had a huge pile of resignations and all sorts of turmoil? A coupola times some geniuses there highlighted tweets of mine to claim I was this thing called an "SJW." My first crime was using the word "trigger" in the sense mental health professional do for those with PTSD. Apparently, they think I was crusading in favor of trigger warnings, which I mostly think are obnoxious and infantilizing. Anyway, catering to those morons is pointless. Who cares?---Mona- (talk) 16:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
My knowledge of Reddit is very limited, but I do have the impression it's indeed not worth caring about. (talk) 16:17, 28 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
That kinda depends on what moral code you subsribe to, but fair point. (talk) 16:15, 28 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

Return of Arisboch's mop by Sorte Slyngel[edit]

It was returned."Arisboch has been out long enough and judging by the way people have been mopped and demopped left and right for the past day, he deserves it as much as any"-Sorte Slyngel. Was the mop taken away before as a result of a COOP case vote? I looked at the archive and couldn't tell for sure. If the mop removal was legit it hasn't been two month's since then (if the 2 month rule is real, I still can't find it) and Sorte Slyngel just abused Sysop powers. If the mop removal was not legit then everything is fine. SolPyre (talk) 22:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

There was no coop case (neither was there for my mop removal; yes I had a mop at some time). It was just an individual decision by one user who shan't be named... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
(ec) I didn't intend any abuse and I don't believe it was. People have been, as I said, been mopped back and forth today without any rhyme or reason. Arisboch is intelligent and has quite a lot to contribute. He may not be popular, but that isn't really an issue. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
your sysop was removed because people, rightly as your actions during that time showed, felt you had not yet "gotten" rw yet. @the question, he had his bit removed via moderator action in an attempt at conflict resolution, aka our job. As the mod who did so, I won't contest it--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
also there was a coop case, started by me on the one month anniversary of the start of the main shitfest, and closed by me when it became apparent there was nothing good to come from it.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
The "main shitfest" being Israel/Palestine? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't care if Arisboch gets it back. Hopefully he won't repeat the behavior.---Mona- (talk) 22:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Issue Resolved

Mona temporarily de-mopped[edit]

I have de-mopped Mona for playing with the user rights of someone whose having of those rights is currently the focus of a Coop case. When that case is resolved, or when they promise to not do so again, give them their rights back. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

You didn't de-mop 142, I merely agreed with 142 who disagreed with your de-mopping Ryu but not LTEC. Please reinstate me, or also de-sysop 142 and see how that goes for you.---Mona- (talk) 19:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Given that Mona has a certain track record of blocking and binning without any compelling reason (vandalism or the likes), it might be prudent to consider a temporary expansion of said de-mopping. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I have no such history. I've been upheld where you and Arisboch are concerned. And, others agree with me about LETC and Ryo. Oddly, AH didn't de-mop 142 for exactly the same action.---Mona- (talk) 19:13, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

142, Chris, someone will give me the mop back. I'm not the issue here and not worried about it. The problem is AH, who detests both Ryo and myself for not concurring with his vision for this wiki. That's why he uses the excuse of my AGREEING with 142 (whom he did not de-mop). He needs to be reined in. And the very last thing Ryo should have to endure is AH having control over him as a condition of his having a mop.---Mona- (talk) 19:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Why do you need a mop? All you're doing is editing articles in good conscience, or so you say. You don't need power, do you? But you will have gotten it back by the time I press Save, no doubt. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I'll get it back because the removal was vengeful bullshit. He didnt even pretend it was for good cause, since he didn't do the same to 142.---Mona- (talk) 19:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
What constitutes „Vengeful bullshit“ is curiously correlated with your personal opinions. If you dish it out, you have to be able to take it back with a smile. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Mona we absolutely DON'T edit talk page section headings without good reason[edit]

Please refrain from doing things like that. Especially in high visibility talk pages like the coop. Thank you Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Nah, I've seen that happen on plenty occasions. (talk) 19:25, 18 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
It doesn't make it right though, does it? Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
It's de facto been largely considered a non-issue throughout the history of RW. If you, Avenger and Arisboch want to change that, be my guest. *shrugs* (talk) 19:43, 18 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
I changed the formatting a lil, this UPPERCASE SHIT WAS HARD TO READ.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 19:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I was just asking. I've mostly stayed out of trouble and fighting, bar the occasional comment. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Can we all just chill for a moment please[edit]

Yes please[edit]

  1. (talk) 19:31, 18 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
  2. By God, can't everyone just calm the hell down!? How did this case get so bad it got taken to the Coop? Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 00:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Nay, let the madness reign supreme![edit]

  1. MORE COOP CASES AND EDIT WARRING, BIYOTCHES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 20:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
    You do know that RWW does not exist any more... Hence there is no HCM meter (or whatever they called it) any more Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Goat, goat, so much goat oh my god goat please stop[edit]

I'm all chilled out. My blood pressure is at - I don't know the values, but pretty low... Are you enraged? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
All the Zionists will vote against me for no good reason. They just want me de-mopped. This shouldn't be a coop case at all. I did nothing more than what you did yourself.---Mona- (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
They just want me de-mopped.- -Mona- I didn't think about that, but now, that you've mentioned it, I think, that this idea has at least some merit.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 19:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't exactly know Aging Hippie's stance on the issue, but I guess he would be surprised to be called a Zionist. Given that he announced to be offline for a week we can't be sure, though Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't really know what a Zionist is in your opinion, but since I am one by that definition, it has to be pretty wide. But relax, the evil Zionists are more or less barred from voting. Cheerio Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
AH is not a Zionist any more than he is a Gamergater. No, he simply loathes that those issues are here. He longs for Ryo, me and others to go away and let RW revert to some "fun" golden age he imagines we are destroying.---Mona- (talk) 19:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Just adding: Resorting to Tu Quoque is something I'm sure you have frowned upon in the past. As well as appeal to authority, which you have used. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Once again you demonstrate a promiscuous spewing of fallacies without understanding what they are -- and are not. I have committed none. Please keep in mind PURPOSE. A statement is fallacious only if it illegitimately seeks to support the truth of a fact claim, not when identifying different standards for different people directly imposed by the same person or group---Mona- (talk) 19:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Wait so according to your definition a fallacy is only a fallacy if you say so? That is... interesting... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I think I remember that RW was supposed to be fun. You have yourself referred to snark as a positive good, although you've never shown a sense of humour. Cheerio Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Moi? Lack a sense of humor? I guess you missed the LSD in a vagina thingie? Of course, you tend to be prissy.---Mona- (talk) 19:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
If AgingHippie has announced a departure and is not prepared to defend his actions, I am going to proceed as if it didn't happen. 142 restored my sysop status and that should be the end of it. Unless, of course, someone thinks 142 should also be de-mopped and brought to the coop? Because all I did was exactly what he did first. That is, I agreed with him as against AgingHippie, which apparently is not allowed by AH.---Mona- (talk) 19:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't think so, since your de-sysopping wasn't the subject of a coop case.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 19:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── What?---Mona- (talk) 19:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think, that 142 should be de-sysopped for re-sysopping you, since you being de-sysopped wasn't a subject of a chicken coop case.--Arisboch ☞✍☜

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────142 did exactly the same de-mopping of LTEC that I did. AgingHippie de-mopped me, but not 142 with whom I was agreeing as against AH. Why: 1. Should AH not have also de-mopped 142, and 2. Why should AH not be de-mopped for abusing his sysop authority by de-mopping me for agreeing with another sysop?---Mona- (talk) 20:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC) ☞✉☜ 19:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't know whether the "golden age" (your words) ever actually existed or not. But it is true that issues that have little to do with our mission have taken up way too much of our time and space lately... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
(ec) @Mona Look in a mirror. You've done everything you've ever accused others of doing yourself. I don't know what is worse, your state of mind or being so deadly boring. Both are probably in the genes, but the former can me helped. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Nope, never happened, which is why you cite no specifics. You, Avenger and Arisboch detest my Zionism knowledge and edits. The three of you are unhinged on the topic of me as a result. AH isn't a Zionist, but he despises that the subject is here.---Mona- (talk) 19:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I remember. You are just too boring for research. Double standards are never pretty, and you have them in abundance. Nobody's unhinged here except you. And I can tell for a fact, as surely as you think you know the law, that that is a fact. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
You don't remember because it never happened. You aren't citing it because it doesn't exist.---Mona- (talk) 20:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
You've linked to whataboutism more often thaen the Pope mentions Jesus.... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:22, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────For appeal to authority, see the Israeli related section of the Apartheid article. For tu quoque see most of this page. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Please be specific. Cite particular instances in which I am alleged to have committed either one of those fallacies.---Mona- (talk) 20:32, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Moving the Goalposts, are we? That trick was old when the old racist George Preston Marshall did it... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Either she's intentionally dense or she's just an idiot. In either case, she's a plebeian. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 21:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Calling her a plebeian is an insult to all plebeians of this world ;-) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
God, you both are fucking stupid and are the idjits actually committing a fallacy, the fallacy of vagueness. Vagueness, be advised, is not always fallacious, but is when, as here, you employ it because the soundness of your argument rests upon it. It is a commonly understood principle of justice and truth that individuals are not required to defend themselves against vague, non-particularized accusations. That "goalpost" never moves; it is the burden that is always on the accuser. FFS. ---Mona- (talk) 22:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Rationalwiki is no court of law Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I'll say! American courts follow Rules of Evidence based on principles of logic. You and Sorte would never have passed a bar exam but you are free to gallivant around here to spew fallacious bullshit, something the judicial system would not usually allow. So, you may do it here but it remains fallacious bullshit.---Mona- (talk) 22:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Law is one of the professions whose expertise I least respect. It's being able to bend words that are intended to be clear against their actual meaning that is the most required skill in lawyering... There are a lot of professions I have more respect for. And Shakespeare would of course agree. But thaen again, what do I know? And who says you are in actual reality a law expert... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:13, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Avenger, I don't give a rat's ass what you respect. The fact is American courts, as with those of the British and other common law nations, apply logic in their rules of evidence. You continually violate myriad principles of logic. So does Sorte. ---Mona- (talk) 23:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Ryulong's mop[edit]

He wants it. It was taken away by coop awhile back. Some idiot gave it back, without a coop decision, so that's shit. Until we vote again, he's not getting it.

And before you BS me on this, Ryu, taking away that which should not have been given does not require coop. Fuck you.— Unsigned, by: FuzzyCatPotato / talk / contribs

Bullshit. He was permitted to get it back after 2 months without bad behavior. Those months passed. You're lying. Hipocrite (talk) 17:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Where is the 2 months decision/policy? he/she is only "lying" if there is/was an actual 2 months thing. You were acting in good faith when you gave R. his mop back because you believed his 2 months where up but unless someone can find the 2 months policy/decision then your belief was wrong.SolPyre (talk) 19:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
What specifically has he done that warrants bringing him here?---Mona- (talk) 05:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Edit warring on GamerGate, blocking User:AgingHippie to get his way in said edit war. Carpetsmoker (talk) 05:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
That in theory doesn't require a coop case, just initiative. Making it stick is gonna require one for sure though. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 05:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that. It takes 2, and I see no reason for AH to have been such a jackass. Can't AgingHippie simply unblock himself?---Mona- (talk) 05:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
We can also always undo vandalism, and yet we have page protections and the vandal bin. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 05:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
What? Because Ryu blocked a guy who had to take two seconds to unblock himself, we have to have this drama? Bullshit. AgingHippie hates the Gamergate article and I think he should leave it the fuck alone for that reason. Ryu shouldn't have to be harassed by an editor who loathes his primary interest and who has made that abundantly clear. If it really is "poorly written" AgingHippie isn't the guy to "assist" Ryu with that.---Mona- (talk) 05:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
"AH doesn't like how the article is written and thus deserves no say in the article content" strikes me as a horribly poorly thought out methodology for running a wiki. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 05:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
No, AH doesn't like the fact of the articles' existence, period. And that is an excellent reason for him to stay away from it. His overt hostility to the mere presence of Ryo and the article is absolutely reason enough. Collegial collaboration is best for a well-running wiki, but not possible in that dynamic. So change the dynamic, since in this case it can be done without discrimination based on viewpoint. (AH isn't pro-Gamergate; he just doesn't want the article here.)---Mona- (talk) 06:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
AH simply shouldn't have taken it away when the event that resulted in it being taken away in the first place ended with a two month minimum and no requirement for me to request it back. AH edit warring with me over attemps to rewrite anything on the page in a way that he didn't find fault with should not mean he should have de-mopped me. The 5 minute transgression with that sex worker IP Carpetsmoker refers to shouldn't mean anything either considering I undid it. It also doesn't help that every single sysop action I do end up doing is automatically undone by AgingHippie by the time he signs in and checks the recent changes. I can't vandal bin obvious concern trolls because their stupidity hasn't entered mainspace and I'm the one violating "Don't feed the troll" by responding to them because RW's rules stipulate that we don't block obvious concern trolls, we just counter troll them until they're fed up. It isn't helping with the idiot BoN who thinks feminists think all men want to rape them who's now spread his idiocy to two other pages. Can't vandal bin the obvious MRA troll wasting several weeks' worth of people's time on a forum space page he made and on a talk page for the same topic he had a whole forum space page set up for. Can't attempt to rewrite an article that AH constantly finds fault with every time he logs on because I don't proofread well enough and forget about obvious grammatical mistakes until he signs on for the day and finds it and points it out instead of trying to fucking fix it himself. But no. I'm a bad sysop. I also can't wait for this to be screencapped or archived or whatever bullshit those idiot Gamergaters do and post about it on either of their stupid little echo chamber subreddits to go, "Look at Ryulong, that fucker can't even get the SJW shils at RationalWiki to like him."—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
"can't vandal bin obvious concern trolls because their stupidity hasn't entered mainspace" -> The turd of a talkpage that is Talk:Feminism would have stopped at a single comment if you had chosen to not respond back in July, now it's still going on and has even bled over in Talk:SAT. Don't feed the trolls. Get it tattooed or something. Do your edits, rollback the ones from trolls, and don't respond to obvious trolls on talkpages. You will find that you will suddenly have a lot less need for "vandal brakes" or "blocks". Carpetsmoker (talk) 07:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
So you just let idiots be idiots so these idiots can then reference to justify their own initial idiocy?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Do you honestly believe your responses are making things better? The only reason they keep coming back is because they keep getting funny responses. Carpetsmoker (talk) 07:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
That doesn't explain why he started out his stupidity on Wikipedia when it comes to the SAT.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Given my relative lack of knowledge re: Ryulong's history with blocks, bans and bins, I'm not going to vote. (Ok, I might vote after reading what everyone thinks.) I only wanted to know what the deal was as between him and AgingHippie. The latter has an unreasonable dislike of topics that he feels are destroying the "fun" that RW once was in some longed-for, bygone era. But that does not preclude his being right in any particular situation. So, other than observing and asking a few questions, I won't participate in any determination of the question before this, er, august body.---Mona- (talk) 14:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Mop him up, with conditions[edit]

  1. On the condition that he listen to AgingHippie. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 04:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. His abuse of the sysop-tools is negligible almost non-existent (edit-warring among sysops was normally solved or at least halted by mod-blocking a page and edit-warring per se is not an abuse of one's sysop-tools, as one can edit-war even as a BoN or a auto-patrolled user) and the block he did was against another sysop, so that's not a big deal, too (takes a few seconds to reverse and is in most cases taken as either a joke or a non-ignorable message service, not something really malicious). He may be a lolcow, but that alone does not warrant a revocation of his sysop-rights. But, OTOH, he shouldn't vandalbin people for shitposting, but only for vandalism or trolling. Give him a few weeks or so without the tools, a stern warning not to vandalbin people without them being actual vandals and/or trolls and make him sysop again.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 14:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  3. Conditional reinstatement as sysop if, and only if (s)he can at least find common ground for a truce with AgingHippie and promises to keep the blocks of said user to a few seconds, tops. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  4. Because right away will most likely fail to gain enough votes. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 04:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
    There is no way that "Mop him up with conditions" dosen't get combined with "mop him up unconditionally" to defeat "no mop." That's a bad faith argument by anyone making it. Hipocrite (talk) 17:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
    So you assume. 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 19:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

#:Actually, and to my surprise, I tend to agree with Arisboch. To my mind, VBing someone for being a troll but who was not vandalizing or edit warring is an actual abuse of the sysop tool -- not the blocks of AgingHippie.---Mona- (talk) 14:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Mop him up, right away[edit]

  1. Yep. Seriously guys, if you want to have a vote to take away Ryu's rights because of bad stuff long in the past, be my guest, but he wasn't at fault in last night's 'incident', so his most recent unmoppage should definitely be undone. (talk) 00:46, 19 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
    I think you should contribute your vote to with conditions, as this seems unlikely to win. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 04:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
    But the conditions cannot include "listening to" AgingHippie. AH should be guided by friends to leave Ryu alone in his work. Whatever editorial oversight is needed at the GG article should be done by others. Why not just tell Ryo if he loses a coop case again he is permanently de-mopped?---Mona- (talk) 04:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. Brave AgingHippie bravely ran away for a whole week. Leaving us 'noobs' to sort through this mess. Fuck it, how about we pretend that this shitshow never happened? Also, good job AH on demopping someone without bringing it to coop first. Isn't that supposed to be a group decision? Typhoon (talk) 10:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  3. Fuck everyone. KOMF 10:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  4. Provide mop. The people who complain about the GamerGate article are either pro-GamerGate (Tielec01, concern trolls) or don't understand the issue (AH, as he has stated himself months previously). I see no reason for Ryulong not to have the mop. --Castaigne (talk) 17:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  5. Two months without bad behavior passed since his demopping. That was the criteria. It was met. Consider dealing with AH's violation of the stated terms. Hipocrite (talk) 17:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  6. Voting for mop sans conditions rather then possibly be included in support for idea that Ryu should have to be guided by, or take direction from, AgingHippie.---Mona- (talk) 18:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


  1. We'll be back here in random(1, 4) months. You can be a perfectly good editor without a sysop. Perhaps less powers will teach Ryulong's to constructively solve disputes rather than blocking people, who, by his own admission, blocks people out of a "stupid act of frustration" because an editor was "unnecessarily combative" (the irony)... I'm also reminded by Douglas Adams' observation that "anyone who wants to be a president sysop is, by definition, unsuitable for the job". Carpetsmoker (talk) 05:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. What Carpetsmoker said. While the consensus appears to be that Ryulong provides worthwhile contribs, he's also prone to go into overdrive when challenged. There's nothing preventing Ryulong continuing to provide said worthwhile contribs without him having a mop as well. Indeed, given his history (also pointed out by Carpetsmoker), a reasonable case can be laid out that not having a mop actually allows Ryulong more time to edit, rather than getting into scraps over minutiae. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
    I was trying to rewrite the lead into some form that AgingHippie would have been fine with but I kept having to deal with edit conflict after edit conflict caused by AgingHippie's edit warring. Explain how that situation determines that I can't have a mop.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
    It's not your latest scrap that clinches the matter but a general pattern of behaviour. See Tielec01's vote below. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
    A block that lasted for all of 5 minutes during a period of time the person blocked hadn't been active in hours and wouldn't be active for several more hours. Attempts to prevent concern trolling that AgingHippie (and Arisboch) undid. Look through any serious admin actions I've taken and it's usually AH or Tielec01 or Arisboch undoing them. Even when it's something a bot had been blocking before. Even when it was someone directly harassing me on more than one occasion. I can't prevent people from further trolling me because someone will immediately undo whatever action I've taken as soon as they log on. I couldn't even get an edit in last night in article space without AH blindly reverting it. Who am I to trust? What am I to do?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
    "I can't prevent people from further trolling me" -> Sigh ... I shall this once more; you can only be "trolled" if you allow yourself to be trolled. Do. Not. Feed. The. Trolls. I truly don't understand why you're having such difficulty in comprehending this...Carpetsmoker (talk) 12:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
    People have registered on this website and done shit on this website for the sole purpose of mocking me and attacking me. My real name has been posted multiple times. Some asshole registered an account in my real name. How am I supposed to stop that? Am I really supposed to ignore that and let other people take care of it (which I did at the time)? How is ignoring trolls supposed to help then?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
    You're not even listening are you? Where with "listening" I mean, actually think about what the other person says, take it into consideration, take a day to process it, assume that maybe you could be doing something else, etc. You just reply and reply and reply for the sake of replying and "refuting". I've suspected for quite a while that fanatical adherents and proponents of "gamergate" are subject to the horseshoe theory in a number of ways, and this confirms it yet again. Carpetsmoker (talk) 12:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
    Don't compare me to a bunch of koolaid drinkers who think feminism is going to take their toys away from them. My attempts to write a single sentence and having AH yell at me every step of the way isn't proof of shit. He hates the page. He's repeatedly complained about it and my writing. It's too long. It's too opaque. Stop writing in the passive tense. Any and all attempts at trying to get it to his standards have been impossible and his edits have introduced factual errors for the sake of brevity. And I'm tired of being brought here like clockwork because of someone else's behavior towards me so maybe that's why I'm responding. This is consistently bullshit.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
    Do not feed the trolls is bad science. It does not work to not feed the trolls. One of my personal examples was Terri Tickle back on USENET; not feeding her had shit-all effect. Actually removing Tickle's internet access and slamming some jail time? Very effective. --Castaigne (talk) 17:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
    Hm, this article hardly shows that with science ;-) Carpetsmoker (talk) 09:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  3. Take away his mop but protect him from any abuse. He has consistently demonstrated he is unable to control his impulses to ban those he doesn't like. Tielec01 (talk) 07:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  4. Every wiki needs it's momomaniac. Consevapedia has Ken, we have Ryulong. Every monomanic, however doesn't deserve a mop. In fact, their monomania almost makes it imperative they never be given a mop. Because of things like this. PsyGremlinZungumza! 10:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
    I am not this website's User:Conservative. It's fucked up to be compared to someone you lot have spent years mocking simply because AgingHippie doesn't like what I've done.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
    No, you're our little resident monomaniac, and we love you. PsyGremlinZungumza! 12:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
    I'm not going to take to being called insane either just because AH wouldn't let anything I tried to write stand for 2 hours straight.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
    Jesus man, log off, do some other shit. I'm worried about you. You need some time off to focus on something else. Take it or leave it, but my advice is to sink a few beers and get out there with some friends. If you are in west Australia I will help you with that. Tielec01 (talk) 12:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
    I would do other shit but I have no means to do so. And I'd much rather be writing about other things but they're not necessarily on mission here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
    You are such a goddamn liar. You're not fucking worried about him at all; you just want the article to go away. Lying about your motivations doesn't work; it's transparent. Ryulong is somebody on the internet, not your bro, your friend, or whatever. maybe if Ryulong was editing for 24 hours straight, popping speed to avoid sleep, catheter in to avoid bio-breaks, then it would be appropriate for you to show concern.
    Or maybe I should be kinder and assume you're some non-IT wonk. Pro-tip: Us computer types? We tend to be on one (and online) for 8-16 hours a day. That's normality. --Castaigne (talk) 17:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  5. No mop! Fed up with his constantly abusing it. Seems to me he's always deleting & blocking anyone who disagrees with him. Scream!! (talk) 11:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
    The last time I seriously blocked someone who couldn't unblock themselves was weeks ago and I undid it shortly after that. The last contested deletion I did was 4 months ago. How does blocking AH of all people for 30 seconds at a time constitute abuse when he was refusing to let anything I wrote stand for more than 30 seconds?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:13, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
    Weeks ago! My God! Why are we still bickering here?! It was WEEKS AGO!!! The real question here is, how can it be that he doesn't have full access to all the servers yet?!?! After all, it was WEEKS AGO!! Carpetsmoker (talk) 12:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
    I fucked up, realized it, undid it, and admitted to it. That issue solved itself. I don't see why AH not letting me edit a page and me blocking him is abuse when he clearly can unblock himself and did and then proceeded to de-op me because I didn't see his five word warning while my attention was focused on trying to edit.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  6. No. Sysop status makes virtually no difference to an editor's ability to edit. So Ryu can continue doing what he likes doing most, with or without those rights. Reading back in various archives, he does seem to either have issues understanding, or just ignores, RW blocking policy. No sysop tools is appropriate.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 16:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  7. No, sadly, the others have a point about Ryulong's lack of self restraint when it comes to the GG subject, and I feel bad for saying that. SolPyre (talk) 19:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC) I have retracted my vote, see below. SolPyre (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC) I have un-retracted my vote because I can't find the 2 month thing and some people are eager to fucking rush this. If the 2 month rule/decision is found I will change my vote to abstain because then this is actually about a conflict between AH and Ryulong. SolPyre (talk) 16:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
    So what? Ryo was brought here for specific actions that occurred last nite. He was being harassed by AgingHippie. AH has now decided he's out of here for a week, after creating a huge pile of shit for everyone else -- first with Ryo and then pertaining to me. To de-mop Ryo for trying to write in peace when AH was driving him batshit is wrong. Whatever his faults, Ryo didn't do anything bad last nite and his Gamergate article is very good. We should treat him properly as a valuable member of RW.---Mona- (talk) 20:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
    No Mona, Ryu was demoped by COOP before and then was illegitimately remoped, trouble over it has started again, the conflict between AH and Ryu is barely even relevant. The conflict between you and AH is totally irrelevant. He's a valuable member, sure, but that doesn't change things. SolPyre (talk) 20:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
    How is it illegitimate when anyone can fucking do it?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
    He was illegitimately remopped by Hipocrite, who was unaware of the previous coop case. It was then brought to the coop and one old established user pulled out an ancient scroll with long-forgotten site policy in it detailing that users who lost their rights in a coop case could have their rights back after a period of 2 months. After the 2 months had passed, Hipocrite appeared once more to reop Ryu, this time all according to the rules. And that's the end of our little story. It's all in the archives. (talk) 21:11, 18 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
    You speak my language 142, I didn't know about the after 2 months thing. This changes things, I retract my vote for now. Where is the 2 month policy? I haven't be able to find it. SolPyre (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
    Thank you 142. AH brought this stupid Ryo coop case here purely because of last nite, an edit war which he actually initiated. As I've repeatedly said now, he needs to leave Ryo the fuck alone. Then today he de-mops me for EXACTLY the same thing you had just done -- I had the temerity to agree with you and not him, and reinstated your de-mop of LETC. So he then de-mopped me and announced it here. Then, after dumping all this shit here, he announces he's gone for a week. He is out of control.---Mona- (talk) 22:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  8. The man shows some serious willful ignorance regarding what people say to him about what is acceptable mop use. He's just gonna end up here again. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png Must've been one swood dude. 21:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


Ryolong did nothing very wrong last nite. Other actions in the past are not why he was brought to this coop. He was brought by the very person why was harassing him last nite. AgingHippie needs to leave Ryo the fuck alone. If Ryo needs some line-editing it should not be by an antagonist like AH who can't give the guy any peace. Certainly not when Ryo is still drafting.

To side with AH on this is to tell a valuable member of the RW community, who has written a very fine and popular article, that we do not appreciate him. Well, I do value his work. And I'm not inclined to make him suffer because AgingHippie wishes he'd never arrived.---Mona- (talk) 20:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


Okay, here's the deal guys. Ryu tried to edit something in the lead of the Gamergate article and AgingHippie instantly and unilaterally reverted him at every turn. Because it's so high-traffic a page that leaving it in an unfinished state for even a moment would be a detestable crime or something? I dunno. Ryu apparently blocked AH a few times so he could actually finish his editing without being edit conflicted with reverts constantly and then AH removed his sysop, assuring Ryu that Gerard can give him back his rights whenever he drops in. Then Fuzzy jumps into the fray, uninformedly assuming that Ryu shouldn't have been allowed to get sysop back yet, and starts this coop case.

So, in my humble opinion, both this coop case and the way Ryu got his mop removed recently are based on pure bullshit. So, firstly, Ryu should get their mop back as it was not removed in accordance with site policy. Secondly, you guys can argue whether Ryu deserves to lose it again here, even though he hasn't abused it in recent times that I'm aware of (but then judging from most of the votes, most disagreement stems from actions way in the past, so there's that). (talk) 19:21, 18 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

It's all utter bullshit and the nexus is AgingHippie. Bullshit with Ryo, now with me. He hates the Gamergate and Zionist stuff, so he does this kind of shit, annoying us all to hell. He needs to simply leave us alone.---Mona- (talk) 19:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
where in the rules does it say 2 months? I think most RWians were fine with removing it forever, and mob rules. The fact that I only noticed last night is unrelated to the fact that Ryu shouldn't have had sysop. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 22:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, where is the 2 months thing? I want to finish making up my mind on the vote. SolPyre (talk) 22:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I see no such rule in the CS. Perhaps it does not exist. *cough*"uninformedly"*cough* FuzzyCatPotato of the Punctual Snakes (talk/stalk) 23:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Not having been here I do not know whether some 2 month thing applies to Ryu or not. But I do know bringing him to the coop for the reasons he was brought this time is bullshit. AH didn't even intend for it to be permanent, assuming that when David Gerard was back it would be returned. In my strong opinion AgingHippie is a problem at this point, and Ryu should not be punished for understandable exasperation with AH's bullshit last nite when Ryu was trying to draft text.---Mona- (talk) 23:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
When you come barging in like this expressing surprise and a lack of up-to-date information, you do come off a bit uninformed, yes. If this wasn't clear yet: I'm reciting this from memory. Someone who I vaguely remember being "an old established user" said that per RW policy Ryulong could be reinstated after a period of 2 months. I don't know where or if this policy is explicitly written down somewhere, but knowing how things typically work on RW, I'd be very surprised if a coop vote to deop someone would always automatically imply "and never ever reop this guy again". I repeat: Ryu's desysopping should be undone as it was done based on bullshit premises. Whatever you guys want to do after that, you're free to discuss/vote on in the coop or elsewhere. (talk) 00:29, 19 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
1: Rhetorical questionWikipedia
2: I think the premise of a coop decision is that it sticks until the next coop. Otherwise, it'd be even more pointless.
3: Ryu's resysopping should never have happened and should have been fixed at that moment. It didn't. It's fixed now. I could care less what happened on Gamergate or in the block logs. I think Ryu should listen to AH because AH has better writing skills, no other reason. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 02:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
"I think" therefore it's policy? "should have never happened" Whew, that drips of Ryu-dislike. As I detailed in a higher section here, when Hipocrite initially restored Ryu's rights it was reverted. I raised the question of when/if Ryu could be resysopped in the relevant coop case and the answer that was supplied was 2 months. Who's the one ignoring previous coop cases again? (talk) 03:06, 19 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
Yes, it does drip of that. AgingHippie may be the finest editor of any wiki ever, but his animus toward Ryu disqualifies him from tending to the Gamergate page. He needs to leave Ryu the fuck alone because not doing so leads to the bullshit of last nite and today. Others can perform whatever line-editing Ryu's text might need. (I've line-edited for publishing houses and would be happy to volunteer.) Surely a number of other users here are up to the task.---Mona- (talk) 03:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
142.124 where is the 2 month decision, you remembering it is not enough for me (and I think FCP might be satisfied by proof that R's reSyopsing didn't go against a previous coop case). I can't find it in the archives, where is it? The closest thing I can find is in the rights log: 20 August 2015 Hipocrite (Talk | contribs) changed group membership for User:Ryulong from autopatrolled to autopatrolled and Sysop ("Therefore, all that's required is for Ryulong to be good for 2 months and his rights will be restored.") Maybe I've missed it please direct me to at least its approximate location. SolPyre (talk) 03:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
You don't trust me enough? Have I not made a compelling case? :( Fine, I'll go archive-diving... after a good night's sleep. ;) (talk) 03:56, 19 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
"should have never happened" = violating coop decision. You'll note that I'm voting for Ryu's resysop, because I totally fucking hate him.
""I think" therefore it's policy?" This is the standard presumption. If we presumed that CC decisions could be overturned at whim, then CC decisions would be totally fucking useless. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 03:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Was it ever decided that Ryu should be permanently de-mopped?---Mona- (talk) 03:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Not explicitly, no. It also was not explicitly decided that he should be temporarily demopped. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 03:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Then why not adopt an attitude of leniency and assume it wasn't permanent? That would allow us to move on to the actual bullshit of last nite and then close this fucking case.---Mona- (talk) 04:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Sure, and "temporary demop" and "permanent demop" are equally likely in case of uncertainty, right? And dude, you're voting for him to adhere to AgingHippie's orders, while AgingHippie hates his guts. That's downright evil! (talk) 03:53, 19 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
"and "temporary demop" and "permanent demop" are equally likely in case of uncertainty, right?" lol, that would be true if we were discussing phil. Look at the votes for "no" and tell me. ;)
"you're voting for him to adhere to AgingHippie's orders, while AgingHippie hates his guts." I have no idea if this is sarcastic, or if you're asserting that I and AH are part of the shadowy organization that runs RW. (We're in league with the Zionist Overlord of RationalWiki, by the way -- meetings tuesday at 5!)
The reason I'm pushing this is that most people don't want Ryu sysop, and ending it now will ultimately create less drama. I hope. Let's see how many weeks this goddamn garbage fire burns. Hannukah, bitch. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 04:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
@FCP, ah my mistake. SolPyre (talk) 03:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
What mistake? Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 03:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@142: The other major reason I cooped it is that everyone keeps running to AH with their issues, instead of flamewarring it out like adults. FuzzyCatPotato of the On the ball Blankets (talk/stalk) 03:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Keeps running to? He's only come back very recently. (talk) 03:57, 19 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
Like 10 issues have been brought up on his talkpage in the past 2 weeks, and he's responded maybe 3 times. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 04:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I was given to understand that AH is some sort of RW éminence grise whose virtuous wisdom on blocking, vandal-binning and protecting pages I should assiduously follow. So, I sought to learn his standards and judgment, including a polite and friendly inquiry or two at his talk page (and also, I think at my own, or possibly Paravant's). As you note, he is not what one could call forthcoming about explaining his actions. At this point I have formed an independent opinion of his current value and do not share the esteem others have for him.---Mona- (talk) 04:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
He's not a god. Anyone that thinks so is dumb. He's just moderately less inflammatory, usually. And he's really not the issue. The issue is whether the community is K with Ryu getting his mop'n'bucket. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 04:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Based on last nite, there is no reason to deny Ryu his mop. AH is an issue, but deciding that is not necessary to moving along on Ryu and last nite. Last nite is what brought Ryu to the coop, and that is all bullshit.---Mona- (talk) 04:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Are you purposely misspelling night as a joke? <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 04:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Wot? I talk on the fone all nite 2 tell ppl abt my fotos.---Mona- (talk) 04:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
What? I talk on the phone all night to tell people about my photos.-- <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 04:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Too tell? (talk) 04:40, 19 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
What too? I didn't see a too. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 04:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Good Lord[edit]

You people I swear--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 20:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

AgingHippie just told Avenger he won't restore his mop because that would entail "undermining" you. He has no problem undermining me, 142 and others. But you are special to him. I'm so not special that he de-mops me for doing exactly the same thing as 142, whom he undermines, but whom does not de-mop. 142 is not as not special as I am. Yes, Good Lord, indeed.---Mona- (talk) 20:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Mona, can you please summmarize what is going on? I am confused. Did you lose some kind of administrator privilege or something? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 22:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Briefly. AgingHippie did the cooping bullshit argued above re: Ryulong, whom he detests; he wishes Ryu had never brought the Gamergate piece here and bothers Ryu there constantly. AH is very unhappy with me because when I arrived last August I pressed the issue of factual edits in articles related to Israel-Palestine, and all hell broke loose from Zionists who were outraged. Edit wars and acrimony ensued, which made AH very unhappy -- he doesn't want either Gamergate or Zionism to be topics here. Today, 142 was having to constantly revert one LetsEatCake; LEC put SmartFeller in a 3 month block for joining in trying to contain his stupid edits all over the site. So, 142 de-mopped LEC for abyusibng his power be blocking SMartFeller; AH reinstated LEC's mop; I reverted the de-mopping to 142's imposition of it on LEC. Whereupon, AH de-mopped me, then picked up his toys and announced he was leaving for a week. 142 reinstated my mop.
In sum: AgingHippie is causing all kinds of shit and took off rather than answer for it.---Mona- (talk) 23:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Wow, my head is spinning. That summary read like a description of the last 25 years of warfare and disagreement in the Middle-East, only it was more complicated. If you don't mind me, I think we should all move on and continue the Israel-Palestine debate. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
It really all is so fucking stupid. Bottom line: AgingHippie has a hard-on for Ryulong, and in't overly happy with me either. Rather than leave us alone he has to fuck with us and cause drama. Then, he leaves so as not to answer for any of the clusterfuck he started. It's major bullshit and he is the problem.---Mona- (talk) 23:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I've been watching Aging Hippie's activity here for more years than his present account shows. He may be peremptory and sometimes less than perfectly tactful, but his contributions helped form and maintain the character of the wiki. I think Mona has much of value to add as well; the present shitfest would not be what it is without the idiocy and tendentiousness of Arisboch and Avenger. Many of the old guard have gone, and some only show up once in a while. Can't say I blame them, the way things are going lately. The world only has a limited supply of patience for puerile shit-stirring, and life is too short to argue with morons on the internet. Alec Sanderson (talk) 23:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I have seen that some who've been here for a time think highly of AgingHippie. For that reason, I didn't follow my initial sense that he was an asshole; I figured I'd try approaching him nicely and simply ask for reasonable explanations for the actions he takes. Those explanations were not usually forthcoming. He does things by fiat, and stirs up shit and then toddles off. His standards are different for the editors and sysops he likes than they are for those he does not. I am not permitted to protect articles for even an hour because of some paramount policy consideration; Paravant, however, may do so at will as far as AH is concerned. (Also, AH will not "undermine"[his word] Paravant, but will undo administrative decisions made by nearly anyone else.) Whatever his prior benefits may have been, he is allowing his unhappiness with the topics I and Ryulong bring to turn him into an an utterly capricious douche. ---Mona- (talk) 00:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
"AgingHippie has a hard-on for Ryulong" Did you mean to say that, Mona? <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 00:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Is there something wrong with it? It means he's out to get him; that's how the word is often used. Actually, I don't even know their genders; for all I know they are two women who lack a penis that can get erect. In any event, it's clear that AH has it in for Ryulong.---Mona- (talk) 03:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Having a hard-on for someone also commonly means wanting to fuck them. I doubt AH and Ryu share this bond. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 03:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
It isn't commonly understood to mean that in the context of a heated argument(s). Only the culturally illiterate could think I intended that sexual meaning.---Mona- (talk) 04:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Jesus on a fucking crutch, people! My use of a common colloquialism is not -- or should not be -- the fixation here. The problem is AgingHippie. Focus, people, focus.---Mona- (talk) 04:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

AH is fine, and usually improves matters. Ryu has been tendentious in the past about very small changes to his our Gamergate article. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 04:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
The problem is definitely not AH. Unless you see having readable articles as a problem. Tielec01 (talk) 04:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I just found it a bit odd and meant it as a minor question, the term is not generally used in my area. Apologies for making you feel like I was changing the topic and belittling your perceived "problem". <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 04:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
AH is decidedly not fine. I can't and won't speak to what Ryu has done in the past, but I watched what happened last nite. (I also now have extensive experience of AH of my own.) Last nite AH was obnoxious and harassing to Ryu. The latter was trying to draft text and could have -- should have -- been left alone for that process. And the last person who should be editing him is AH, who clearly cannot stand Ryu.---Mona- (talk) 04:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
If AH dislikes Ryu, the feeling appears mutual and has grown out of months of the two being at loggerheads. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 04:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
(EC) This reminds me of "No no, Israel is not the problem, Hamas is! [insert past, exaggerated or imaginary crimes by Hamas here]". >.>
When AgingHippie abuses his sysop tools, what Ryu has done in the past is not relevant. (talk) 04:24, 19 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
Great point 142. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 04:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh god. Pandora's box has been opened, someone just referenced the Israel-Palestine controversy.
Amateur's move bro'; let's stick to one huge blow-up at a time. Tielec01 (talk) 04:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

DING DING DING: "When AgingHippie abuses his sysop tools, what Ryu has done in the past is not relevant."---Mona- (talk) 04:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

If you think AH abused his sysop tools, coop him. You've certainly got enough salt to make an average coop case. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 04:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Before you do that Mona please see this link. Tielec01 (talk) 04:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
*cough* The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 04:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
eheh heheh, sometimes I forget why I like it here. SolPyre (talk) 04:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I have no intention of making a coop case of AgingHippie -- at least not now and not over this alone. It is my devout wish that we tie this matter of Ryu up and get the fuck out of here. AH's behavior is relevant now only in terms of the silly, non-coop case about me that was just archived (why it was her at all is anyone's guess), and this coop case about Ryu.---Mona- (talk) 04:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Wanna tie it up? Call it at 7-5 for the status quo of no mop. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 05:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
No, not yet. It's actually 7-6. 142 has voted for mop with no conditions at all. This is quite close and others should be given a chance to weigh in in the next few days. Moreover, if the vote is to withhold the mop it should be explicitly term-specific, and not permanent.---Mona- (talk) 05:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Sure, with a period of 2 years, in which time Ryulong can perhaps grow up. Carpetsmoker (talk) 05:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2ZT1P9lVkE αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 06:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


It's 8-6 for a resysop, presumably with conditions given that no conditions has 3 votes out of 8. Ryulong has been resysopped. Can this be archived? Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 15:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

There 's no conditions. I only approved anything reasonable that did not include anything vis-a-vis AgingHippie, and Fedora only voted with the "conditions" people because he thought that was going to win. So, the only proposed condition (about "listening to Aging Hippie") lost: Ryulong is, therefore, re-mopped with no conditions.---Mona- (talk) 15:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Anyone want to run a book on how long it will take for this same subject to come up again? --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 15:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────It won't be this same subject, if it happens. The only thing brought to the coop was the goings-on of last Friday nite.---Mona- (talk) 16:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

No its not over because A. Komf remoped Ryu before this shit was resolved and before even adding his/her vote (which reads "fuck everyone") and B. because unless the 2 month thing is real a positive decision (giving R the mop back) requires a 2/3 majority (unless nobody pays any attention to that CS). If the 2 month thing is real then demopping R. would need a 2/3 vote because R's current mop would be legit and the simple majority vote we have already is enough to reaffirm that.SolPyre (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Huh? It was never voted, that anyone claims, to permanently de-mop Ryu. So why does it need to be a 2/3 vote to remop him? The sole issue brought to the coop was the behavior of Friday nite.---Mona- (talk) 16:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, permanency was never explicitly stated but nor was any specific length of time that I can find, therefor the duration of the demop is indefinite (functionally the same as permanent) because otherwise decisions by the coop without specific time mentions can be undone after two seconds by anyone who feels the duration should be over. Again all this is moot if someone can find the 2 month decision/policy (pls someone find it so this can be over, I've l tried and I can't). SolPyre (talk) 16:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
"The sole issue brought to the coop was the behavior of Friday nite." -> Complete and utter bullshit. Yes, this was the instigator, but as FuzzyCat points out from the start, he removed the sysop because it never should have been given back in the first place. The first post under "no" (mine) also cites structural and consistent childish behaviour, rather than yesterday's nonsense with AgingHippie. Carpetsmoker (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Was Ryu ever *permanently de-mopped?[edit]

On what basis did Fuzzy remove it "because it never should have been given back in the first place?" I keep asking, and no one has a citation. Exactly where did this happen that the mob decided to permanently remove Ryo's mop? If there is no citation and quotation to text that a reasonable person would agree means that the de-mopping was intended as permanent, I decline to accept that this happened.---Mona- (talk) 17:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

ADDING: If there is no basis for what Fuzzy did, the mop should immediately be returned. ---Mona- (talk) 17:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

As I said the duration was not explicitly stated therefor the duration is assumed to be indefinite. [1] SolPyre (talk) 17:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
This horse has been beaten, bludgeoned, kicked, mauled, and mutilated, and by now is quite dead, deceased, passed away, snuffed it, and is bereft of life. The duration of was not specified. If anything, this coop case is simply "Do we want to give Ryulong his sysop back? Yes, no?". The fact that his sysop was apparently returned after only a single month was a mistake that somehow slipped under the radar. Carpetsmoker (talk) 17:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
2 months, motherfucker. Get your facts straight. Hipocrite (talk) 18:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The issue is whether Fuzzy was right to take Ryu's mop, regardless of how one interprets history. The votes as I read them are 9-7 in favor of Ryo having the mop.---Mona- (talk) 17:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

It does not at all appear that the de-sysoping was assumed to be permanent. From the archives:

Just wondering

Hipocrite clearly makes an unconvincing case for his actions. But what exactly would be required to resysop Ryulong? Does it require a mob vote session? Does a bit of time need to pass and can he then get sysop powers through the regular process (random passerby gives rights after noticing someone's not a sysop yet)? (talk) 00:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how my case, which was "random passerby gives rights after noticing someone's not a sysop yet," is unconvincing. Hipocrite (talk) 00:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Your case was more "WTF Ryulong's not sysopped anymore? Lemme resysop him and spout insults at anyone who disagrees". (talk) 00:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The first half is correct, the second half is "spout insults at anyone who wheel-wars with me." Close thou! Hipocrite (talk) 00:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

On the question of "What is required to resysop Ryulong," the Coop vote from which he voluntarily ceded his rights was for his rights to be removed for 2 months. Therefore, all that's required is for Ryulong to be good for 2 months and his rights will be restored. Simple as that. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 07:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Whatever that reduces to, it is not that there was a clear understanding the ban was permanent. In fact, there is no clear understand at all. So, I repeat, after a significant period of Ryu having his mop back, on what basis did Fuzzy remove it "because it never should have been given back in the first place?"---Mona- (talk) 17:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

And I repeat: No duration is specified therefor the duration is assumed to be indefinite And where in the Coop case I linked to above is the 2 months thing that JJJS references? I don't see it, show it to me and this can finally be over. SolPyre (talk) 17:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Mona is absolutely correct, and I say that as someone who has disagreed with her strongly elsewhere. Often. The original demoping was for 2 months, and that was made quite clear in the section quoted. Hipocrite (talk) 17:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
"No duration is specified therefor the duration is assumed to be indefinite" Indefinite is not coterminous with permanent, and moreover, I read no clear assumption at all in the "legislative history."---Mona- (talk) 18:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
No one said it was "permanent", certainly not in this section. You're doing a straw man here. Carpetsmoker (talk) 18:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
'\'[CARPETSMOKER] Quote: Yes, permanency was never explicitly stated but nor was any specific length of time that I can find, therefor the duration of the demop is indefinite (functionally the same as permanent) because otherwise decisions by the coop without specific time mentions can be undone after two seconds by anyone who feels the duration should be over. Again all this is moot if someone can find the 2 month decision/policy (pls someone find it so this can be over, I've l tried and I can't). SolPyre (talk) 16:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC) ---Mona- (talk) 18:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
You know, I don't care that much about his sysop, but what the hell? Indefinite means "duration not defined", permanent means "forever". They are not the same thing. Now, "duration not defined" is open to interpretation, of course, but it's not "2 months" or "permanent", although that could be some people's interpretation, it's not the interpretation. You're twisting words (and making that last post look like it was from SolPyre?! WTF?!) Carpetsmoker (talk) 18:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── WTF? I put the word "Quote" in front of it to show you SolPyre did write that. S/he did, in fact, write that. I saw no disagreement. And you are the first to suggest my understanding that the de-mopping was claimed to be permanent is actually wrong (a "straw man.") I don't erect straw, and most fucking certainly not over something as ultimately inconsequential as this. If it was never believed to be permanent, then why the fuck did Fuzzy de-mop in this instance?---Mona- (talk) 18:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I did in fact say the above. When I say that indefinite is functionally the same as permanent I mean that 'permanent' is a removal with the intention of it never being returned and can only be undone via coop and 'indefinite' is removal without the intention of it never being returned but also without a specified waiting period so that it can only be returned by coop case, therefor both permenatly and indefinitely are only undone by coop case and are functionally the same. SolPyre (talk) 18:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
What sort of bullshit quotemining is this? One person mentions "2 months" somewhere in a single place, and therefore it is 2 months? This is complete nonsense. If your opinion is that Ryulong should have his sysop reinstated, fine, we can agree to differ on that opinion, but I have no patience for this sort of crap. The vote was (on the same page you linked to) "Should we desysop Ryulong?". Nothing more, nothing less. Carpetsmoker (talk) 18:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── "Quote-mining" does not mean what you think it it does. I fucking reproduced the entire section of the only discussion of duration I could find. (Except for scattered references that were not binding or anything but a user's aspirations or suggestions that were not discussed or adopted.) I don't do straw, and nor do I "quote-mine." Jesus.---Mona- (talk) 18:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I originally operated under the assumption that it was "indefinite," and determined that the individual in question would pass muster as a sysop ("Any user who is not a vandal or troll is generally "demoted" first to "autopatrolled", and then to sysop by current sysops. (Remember that this is a wiki, so any damage done by a vandal who manages to be "demoted" can easily be undone.)... Sysops may demote users to sysop at their individual discretion." When I was informed that there was a 2 month floor on a resysop, I accepted that and waited the requisite time. If his promotion was infinite, or future demotion required additional hoops, that should have been made clear at any point. So, either I was right, and his promotion was indefinite, in which case I used my discretion and demoted him, or it was 2 months, in which case I demoted him appropriately later. If there were conditions, those were never stated anywhere, so they didn't exist. So, regardless of the state of play, he should be sysoped now. Hipocrite (talk) 18:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Case closed?[edit]

There are now 10 votes that Ryulong gets the mop back. And, most improbably, I agree with Hipocrite that the further issue is actually AgingHippie.---Mona- (talk) 17:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

That's a bit stronger than what I wrote. Hipocrite (talk) 18:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Ok, sorry.---Mona- (talk) 18:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I would give it until the end of 10/20 to make sure that everyone who wants to vote can do so. --Castaigne (talk) 18:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Fine with me.---Mona- (talk) 18:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Once again this is being rushed without the 2 month thing being resolved, someone find the 2 month policy/decision and I will withdraw my objections about a 2/3 vote being needed and switch my vote to returning the mop unconditionally. The current vote stands at 10 out of 17 in favor of returning the mop. SolPyre (talk) 18:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to RationalWiki! Where the fuck are you getting 2/3 from? Hipocrite (talk) 18:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to RW yourself, with an extra exclamation!! I was getting 2/3 from the CS but rereading that I see that I was in error, the 2/3 does not apply here, I will strike all my mentions of it. SolPyre (talk) 18:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Hey SolPyre, I'm confused about your vote. If the 2/3 thingie is resolved to your satisfaction, are you abstaining or voting to return the mop unconditionally? If the latter, you might want to go up and vote.---Mona- (talk) 20:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

No not if the 2/3 is resolved (which it has been, it was my mistake) if somebody can find me the 2 months policy/decision because if that is actually a thing then Ryu current mop is legit and I don't think the thing with AH is bad enough alone to not give him the mop back. SolPyre (talk) 21:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
How do those 10 (5 unqualified, 5 with conditions) pro-mop votes stack up against the 7 "no" votes?
Quite apart from my obvious conflict of interest, I'm truly curious about the qualified majority issues at stake here. On the one hand a status quo (assuming that Ryulong doesn't have a mop at the moment, of course, I haven't bothered checking) is an automatic victory for the "no" camp, while a mop restoration would seem to require a further discussion of conditions or not.
Anyway, the latter is probably unnecessary since Ryulong has basically pissed off enough other editors to ensure that any future (perceived) abuse of mop powers is likely to be brought to the coop in a millisecond along with a serious dose of "I told you so"-smugness. Effectively, even an unconditional restoration of Ryulong's mop will probably be more like a de facto parole. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
The mop was restored earlier by one of the unqualified yes voters. 10 people don't want the mop removed, and of those 5 express support for varying conditions -- these (of whom I am one) do not all agree. In fact, I think I'm moving to the unqualified yes camp, rather than be seen as support for making Ryu listen to AH, who is harassing and unreasonable to Ryu.---Mona- (talk) 18:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, a victory for the status quo it is then. Unless the "no"s can muster a clear cut majority, the status quo (Ryoling with a mop) will and should obviously prevail. Personally, I'm more than a bit tired of what seems a rather monomaniacal editor (as another editor put it above), but if my personal opinions became a guideline RW wouldn't be the place it is (which is in all probability a good thing - in case you wondered). ScepticWombat (talk) 18:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
In my view Ryu needs to get it thru his head that banning and VBing people for trolling is a no-no. Trolling a talk page is annoying, but then the thing to do is ignore them. Unless they are spamming or otherwise exceeding reasonable volume of output, then a VB could be in order. But we don't VB for mere trolling.---Mona- (talk) 18:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Not really 10 votes, since the two options that make up 10 votes are mutually exclusive. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png JESUS CHRIST, THEY'RE MY OWN BUTTOCKS 21:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────They're not "mutually exclusive." For one thing, I'd go back to the mop with conditions as long as the condition hasn't to do with Aging Hippie. The condition should be no blocking or vandal-binning for talk page stuff unless a reasonable case for spamming or crap-flooding is apparent. He just needs to be told not to do that to mere trolls, but it isn't hard to see why a guy heavily involved with the Gamergate topic could make needed use of sysop tools. Do we have any experience of Ryu abusing sysop tools when he isn't being harassed by normal users?---Mona- (talk) 22:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

It would be interesting to see who holds the RW record for being cooped. My guess is that it would be Nutty Roux, but I'm betting Ryulong is running a close second. Sadly, I'm not sufficiently motivated to do the analysis.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Maybe Brx? (Who's ban ends in like, a week.) --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 20:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


How about we just nuke everything that's GamerGate-related on the wiki, purge it from the archives, ban Ryulong permanently, and forbid the topic from ever being mentioned here again? Easy-peasy. We then stop having any Ryulong discussion or problem or argument or beef or whatever, ever again.
And before anyone writes this off as satire, I'm dead serious. Problems cease to be problems when they cease to exist. You cannot have a war between Israel and Palestine if neither exist. Gamergaters have no beef with Sarkeesian, Quinn, and whoever if those people are dead and their works destroyed. Ryulong and the GamerGate articles cannot be considered an issue here on the wiki if they do not exist. Fast. Simple. Expedient. Solves the problem permanently.
If you have a persistent problem with an appliance, trash it.
If you have a persistent problem with a computer program, nuke and pave it.
You all bitch, for one side or another, but you never issue edicts, come to permanent decisions, or engage in decisive action rather than endless squabbling indecision. Christ, at this point I'll just agree with everything KotakuInAction, Tielec01, Carpetsmoker, and Arisboch say about Ryulong and the articles just so they fucking stop whinging every goddamn week. I'd even offer to put a bullet in people's heads just to hear the whinging stop. Reminds me of the time I had to crack a rubber mallet upside an errant roommate's head to make them shut the fuck up. --Castaigne (talk) 23:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────NO

No. How silly to get rid of an article(s) because it is controversial and so brings in lots of traffic, including trolls. Moreover, the coop is not the right place for this discussion. ---Mona- (talk) 23:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)---Mona- (talk) 01:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, that reminds me of moot's decision of canning GG from 4chanShrug.gif.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Solved his problem very expediently. Didn't have a problem with GG afterwards. --Castaigne (talk) 23:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
(double edit conflict)Well at least this one does not involve genocide.... As opposed to your mideast "peace" plan.... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I assure you, if we straight up kill everybody in the middle east, there will 100% be peace in the middle east. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't think so, the real war will start over who get's the leftovers.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Then we shall kill them as well. I mean once we ban cars, what good will the middle east offer to people? :v --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
There'd be always people, who'd wanna get the leftovers and it still'd have losta sunny space to put sun pannels for the generation of electricity.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
got a solution for that already. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
This is factually correct. And all things being equal... --Castaigne (talk) 23:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
You must have missed where I said "You cannot have a war between Israel and Palestine if neither exist." This, of course, means that Israelis and Palestinians both don't exist either. --Castaigne (talk) 23:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Arrakis teaches the attitude of the knife - chopping off what's incomplete and saying: 'Now, it's complete because it's ended here.'- Princess Irulan, 'Collected Sayings of Muad'dib'--Castaigne (talk) 23:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif Dune is fucking awesome!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I look forward to when Rw becomes halfwiki.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
If I have to implement solutions, that's probably what would happen. --Castaigne (talk) 23:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Fighteer! |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png I'm the coolest driver's high 23:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
If you're here just to have fun axe it. If however preaching the RW message is the prime directive then weigh cost/benefit. If you do axe the article any reason Ryulong couldn't maintain a copy just for him to edit in userspace? Sarah (HH) 07:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
You personally won't like the article unless it's tonguing Vivian James' fictional clit so why should your opinion matter here?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
You personally won't like the article unless it's tonguing Vivian James' fictional clit- Ryulong For that kinda language, sites like, say, WHTM would have you tared and feathered. You don't toe the anti-GG-partyline anymore, you heretic :D :D :D.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 13:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Stop kinkshaming my desire to mock Gamergate's sexual attraction to their cartoon character mascot.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The whole GamerGate shitfest is one big Streisand effect where obsessive autistic basement trolls' stupid hatred is given merit by 14,170 word articles on the topic written by other obsessive autistic basement trolls. This is of course considered rather funny by basement trolls A, which are then encouraged to spread more of their (at least partly feigned) hatred, which invokes another response from basement trolls B, which encourages basement trolls A, and so forth... I'm not really against baning GamerGate, by the way, we could do a decent ~2,000 word article on it. Carpetsmoker (talk) 08:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Good post! Wot 'e sed!Scream!! (talk) 08:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Amen, bro, GG is feeding the GG-trolls big time and Ryulong is the biggest lolcow on teh block here.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 13:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Inferring people have autism or similar disorders on that spectrum is just as fucked up as calling someone "retard" so let's not do that.
Also the page was just about as long before I signed up as it is now. Here's a comparison between the first and most recent edits I did to the page. Perhaps it needs to be pared down but I'm tired of shit being blamed on me. Back then it was 7400 words. Today it's 10k. And that's leaving out all the references which add to the length (and file size) of the page considerably.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Caricature: "someone or something that is very exaggerated in a funny or foolish way". Now, you may not find it particularly funny, and that' fine, but your response shows the complete lack of humour that's so characteristic of the whole anti-GG movement (and our GG page), which is, among other things, indicative of a lack of perspective. In addition, the first revision is 9,263 words, so it is a 50% increase ;-) I also used basement trolls, which is a plural ;-) Carpetsmoker (talk) 09:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I only don't find it funny because you're so incredibly offbase as to what this is about. It's not a "Streisand effect" gone out of control (necessarily). It's more of the libertarian MRA dickheads of the Internet shitting things up but in the context of video games. I really don't get how people think the Streisand effect comes into play unless it's because the Gamergater assholes wanted to get rid of women who were then put into media spotlights as a result of the extreme douchebaggery sent their way. Also there's no such fucking thing as "anti-GG". That's persecution complex bullshit Gamergaters think exists because they don't realize they're on the wrong side of history like the rest of the NRX Internet.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
And I seriously don't get why you and everyone else always makes such a big deal about how long the page is. Most of its length is references. I don't complain how fucking long A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism or Scientific Facts in the Bible: 100 Reasons to Believe the Bible is Supernatural in Origin are. But I'd love to see you attempt to summarize the last year of shitflinging in 2000 words and still manage to get some aspect of it all remotely right when everything that has been done is to ensure that GG idiots can't niggle about some minor technical inaccuracy that in their mind completely negates anything else the page says about them and villifies them as a group as a result.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Classic not as bad as. In any case, not every detail needs be documented here. Carpetsmoker (talk) 09:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
These idiots believe they've beaten the United Nations because of one subcommittee's really shitty report on cyber crime. That's why the pages are so long and thorough because otherwise their delusions and lack of self-awareness are justified by their echo chamber bullshit.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
That makes no sense. I don't remember reading about said report in the GG article last week. Maybe I missed it, bit it's certainly not a significant portion. You can still focus on core issues in the main GG article and put the details elsewhere (like the timeline, or other separate pages); this is also where the comparison of the 2 pages you mentioned before falls down, those are extensive critiques of a particular book, not the main page on a topic (which is Creationism). The Creationism page is also long, and that's okay, I have nothing against long pages as such, but it's much better written for a number of reasons. Note that this is not necessarily a critique against you, as such, and I also understand that GG is a pretty new thing and that the article probably grew as events unfolded (which can be seen VERY obviously in its structure), but at some point someone needs to stop adding to this article, and do an extensive rewrite. Carpetsmoker (talk) 09:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
The UN stuff is on the timeline presently. And it is true. They think they're better than the UN because of the shoddy work on this which cites a LaRouche crony blaming Pokemon for mass murders and also a file on the writer's HD.
Anyway, I'm sure that what's on the Gamergate page presently can be pared down to some extent but no one has been able to do it without sacrificing context and further cutting out the jokes that I personally know I had put in. Someone fairly recently went through the whole page and changed all of the section titles to be dry basic descriptions of the sections rather than any of the jokes I had originally put in (I've changed only a few to newer versions). I've attempted to throw in an "it's over 9000" reference and a dig at "OpSkynet" and GG's lack of self-awareness. The length and thorough nature of the page is on par with the take downs on those books because I have literally had to argue with some gator who came to RW to complain that we said GG hacked Zoe Quinn and found nude photos when instead those photos were acquired "legally" from a website that they only could hav discovered as a result of the hacking attempts. Shit like that is why it's so long. Because either I or someone else here had to dig up a first-hand account of something to disprove a GG talking point and add it to the third-hand media accounts of the same event in order to get rid of any chinks in the armor of the page. I'd gladly help someone out with making it easier to read. I kept AgingHippie's preferred version of the lede before he disappeared (with minor structuring changes). Before that I had cut out hundreds of words at a time to pare it down. But everyone keeps complaining about length and structure and no one does anything about that but complain about how long it is and point out sentences I should have read again before saving the page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
So that's ableism, ad cellarium and an obsession with detail (really, you counted all the words?) potentially indicative of autism (which isn't objectively a bad thing, though you wouldn't know it from the comments here) all rolled into one. Jeepers creepers. (talk) 11:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Don't you get it? It's just a joke, bro. It's just a joke. The finest humor on the internet.Typhoon (talk) 11:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Counting the words is easy on a computer; it takes about 5 seconds. As for the rest, you can replace "obsessive autistic basement trolls" with "people" and the reasoning as such still stands (which anyone is of course free to disagree with), so you can call that a fallacy fallacy or tone fallacy or some such... In addition, it's pretty clear that "autistic" in this context is the same as "idiot" (which was originally used to describe someone with an intellectual disability) is usually used today, not describing an actual mental illness, but a certain behaviour... (but this is getting a bit off-topic...) Carpetsmoker (talk) 11:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Bit off-topic? You don't say. In fact, I'd say the entire discussion in this section is off-topic to the coop case and belongs on the Gamergate Talk page. Typhoon (talk) 11:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

You have literally argued with a GGer? As opposed to metaphorically? Tielec01 (talk) 10:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The "literal" is meant to reference the idiotic topic that had to be discussed.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Tielec01's pointless comment is a nice example of why the Gamergate article is so long. GGers love to pick on minuscule shit in order to use it to negate the whole thing, leaving the rest of us with no choice but to cover it all. Typhoon (talk) 10:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
True, you guys have literally no choice. Tielec01 (talk) 10:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Of course you have a choice. The one-mistakes-invalidates-it-all tactic is also popular in religion, climate denial, homoeopathy, etc. GG is no exception. Carpetsmoker (talk) 10:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Then you should know that GGers will continue to bitch about our article forever. Leaving out parts out of it because "hurr durr it's too long" will only make it easier for them to point out made-up "mistakes" and "fallacies" and shit up the talk page with their concern trolling. Typhoon (talk) 11:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Do you really think that any page will convince those people? I wouldn't expect it, just like our homoeopathy, bible, etc. pages are never going to convince a single hardcore homoeopath, Christian, etc. The articles are for those who don't really know anything about GamerGate yet, or those heard about it an think "hey, it has a point" and want to learn more. Carpetsmoker (talk) 11:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I am sure that GG calling the cops and CPS on a friend of mine for supporting Nyberg against harassment was just purely hilarious. Just a Streisand effect. I'm terribly sure that KiA - where the call was put for this to be done - were just having some ha-has. Obviously my friend Rouner just needs a sense of humor. --Castaigne (talk) 14:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Wrapping up this ugly crapfest[edit]

Okay, so clearly this vote on Ryu's mop (which shouldn't have happened in the first place (see what I did there?)) turned out in favour of Ryulong being allowed their mop back (unless you really really like the spoiler effectWikipedia, in which case WTF?). Now, firstly, I should mention...

Okay, so I went archive-diving[edit]

Turns out I remembered/interpreted things a bit wrong. (Sorry. :/) John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (the user who I recalled answering the 2 months thing) was besides an old established user also the user who first proposed to desysop Ryulong in the relevant coop case. As that link will show, he specifically proposed to take the mop away for 2 months. Now, I'm sure most of the people who voted in said coop weren't aware of all the specifics involved in the voting options, but I doubt that's a first in the history of democratic voting. Additionally, several of the votes state that the desysopping should only be for a week/month, so Fuzzy asserting "the mob would be okay with/would've probably wanted an indefinite desysop anyway" is pure conjecture.

Interestingly, when Hipocrite popped up and wanted to resysop Ryu immediately (causing some drama in the process), which spurred me to ask under what condition(s) Ryu might regain their mop, Fuzzy was there and I even specifically pointed him to my query. The latter link also shows Raysenn (the user who started the specific vote that got Ryu deopped) agreeing with JJJS about the requirements for Ryu's mop being restored.

All of which pretty clearly shows how much bullshit the coop case we just went through was. (talk) 00:21, 21 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

Once again you speak my language (and you follow through). I hereby declare myself blind and switch my vote from "No" to "Yes" without conditions. (It doesn't make much difference at this point but I promised that I would.)SolPyre (talk) 03:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

And now you guys are free to do whatever you feel still needs doing[edit]

Yep! Do you still wanna establish some sort of condition that should be connected to Ryu's mop? You can still do that. Does anyone wanna coop AgingHippie for brazenly demopping people? You're free to do so. Does anyone wanna coop Fuzzy for starting that bullshit coop? Be my guest. What I'm gonna do, though, is not pay attention to the coop for a while. Because damn this page sucks up way too much time. Oh, and one last bit. Proposals for wholesale banishing topics from the wiki isn't something that belongs in the chicken coop. Maybe try the bar or AfD. (talk) 00:21, 21 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

From the bottom of my heart: Thank you!---Mona- (talk) 00:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome. ;) (talk) 00:56, 21 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
"Oh, and one last bit. Proposals for wholesale banishing topics from the wiki isn't something that belongs in the chicken coop." A-fucking-MEN to that! SolPyre (talk) 03:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Yup. I said it right away, but Paravant was pissed that I began a new section to make that point, so he deleted it. Later I realized that and inserted it into the other section somewhere, but it was probably overlooked.---Mona- (talk) 04:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)