RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive39

Avengerofthe BoN

There seems to be some dispute over AOTB's status here. Can the community please weigh in. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 03:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Is it possible to place restrictions only on certain pages for one particular user? As far as I know, Avenger's perceived problematic behaviour is only on a few articles? I've see him do quite a few good edits on non-Israel related stuff. Carpetsmoker (talk) 23:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I would say - but this is of course partially grounded in my opinion on the issues themselves - that what is viewed as problematic behavior on my part is - at least in part - either caused or influenced by the views other users may have on said issues... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I have no opinion on that matter, as I've not been involved in those discussions, and haven't bothered to read up on them either ;-) Anyway, I found Special:AbuseFilter, and I think we can do something with this? Carpetsmoker (talk) 00:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

While I do think this solution is not entirely without its charm, I am still a bit unclear about the details... How do you imagine this would work? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly, not that familiar with MediaWiki, and since I can only see (but not experiment) with this, it's a bit difficult to say what exactly is and isn't possible, but I was thinking something along the lines of "IF > 5 edits IN 10min THEN protect_page", or something along those lines (details can be worked out later)... Carpetsmoker (talk) 00:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, as you know he brought Israel shit to the whataboutery article that you repeatedly reverted. I gave you cites to add sound points about Israel and whataboutery if you so chose, but declined to do so myself since I knew it would invite Avenger and his two pals to shitfest at that page. But, let's say I had gone ahead -- which I had every right to do. Why should we not have been able to preclude Avenger's usual behavior by sysop-locking the page? Why give him his mop back -- when Paravant just declined to -- if it prevents the effective page locks he often makes necessary?---Mona- (talk) 03:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The amount of "shit" on the whataboutism page wasn't that bad. The "edit war" was very brief, after which the topic was discussed on the talk page. Carpetsmoker (talk) 15:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

It's part of a bigger pattern, though. And what that pattern reveals isn't that he doesn't wanna insert bullshit anymore and edit war over it, but that he's gotten more tactical about it. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 17:45, 26 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

Which is not, in itself, a binnable offense. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 17:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Did I say it was? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 17:51, 26 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

No, but it was brought up in the context of a discussion about binning, so I just wanted to point out that this line of reasoning is not relevant to that discussion. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 17:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The topic seems more broadly about Avenger's history of misbehaviour and Mona asking what course of action should be taken when he's making bad edits. It's also worth noting that excessive use of the bin only became an issue to begin with because you suggested it to Mona as the preferable way of handling things. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 18:02, 26 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

If by 'being tactical' you mean actually discussing issues and trying to convince people, then how is this a bad thing? Or am I missing something? That his opinion on some matters is different from the majority opinion here is a good thing IMHO (although he's a tad too fanatical about it for my liking, but then again, so is his "nemesis" Mona sometimes) Carpetsmoker (talk) 18:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh no, that's not what I mean. Avenger has been talkative from the very beginning. The remarkable part was that where he often seemed somewhat reasonable on talkpages (in conversation style, at least), his actual edits to articles were full of blatant misinformation and petty crap and he would edit war over having it included in the page to the point of absurdity. What I mean with that he's become more tactical is that he's toned down that latter part. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 18:20, 26 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

AgingHippie protected a page b/c Avenger was edit warring

See this. But now page protection, binning Avenger, that's all wrong now. AgingHippie cannot give a rational reason for this sudden change in attitude about both Avenger or page protecting and binning. This is recent history: I was told by AgingHippie early in October NOT to protect pages for edit warring (only to learn he's done it himself, and to stop Avenger yet). But he told me I was not to protect pages, only to bin. Which I did today, to Avenger, for edit warring against me and 142BoN over already negotiated edits at the BLM page.

So, AgingHippie brings this coop case and votes not only to not bin Avenger, but to undermine Paravant by restoring a mop that Parvant explicitly declined to return when he gave back autpatrol to Avenger last week. And get this: only last week AgingHippie affirmed Paravant, and would not "undermine" him. Avenger asked AH to restore his mop, and AH replied:

Wait. I see that Paravant/Miekal is the one that de-mopped you. That kid is generally on-point, has been here a while and is and not someone I would undermine without good reason. suggest you take it up with him. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

My I ask: What the fuck is up with AgingHippie?Why, if it is me binning Avenger for edit warring, well in that case not only should Avenger not be binned, why, he should have sysop restored and what Paravant thinks, well, concern about "undermining" him suddenly disappears. Why?

In sum: Why 1. is AgingHippie opposed to protecting pages from non-sysop Avenger, or 2. opposed to vandal binning Avenger, and 3. instead seeking to give Avenger his mop in light of all the above?

And in light of Avenger's history, do you really think he should be handed a mop?---Mona- (talk) 03:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Should he be sysopped?

Can't see why not. Peace. AgingHippie (talk)

Paravant a week ago to Avenger: Here have autopatrolled back. I'm still weary on you and needing sysop however, due to last month. Keep up the good work though ~ --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 14:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

AgingHippie, you recently declined to "undermine" (your word) an administrative decision made by Paravant. What is different now?---Mona- (talk) 00:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure... Get back to me when you've familiarized yourself with this user's history of shitfests and we'll see if you still feel the same way. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:51, 25 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

Yes

1. Unless someone presents compelling evidence why not. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 23:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
2. Sure. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{THAT IS STILL LEGAL TENDER. I AM SANDWICH LAWYER.} 00:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

   FFS, Paravant removed the mop, and for a very good reason won't give it back yet.---Mona- (talk) 00:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

   As for Paravant's opinion, there is a place where he has stated it, but I won't link unless given express permission to do so Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

3. Yes, until behaviour warrants those rights being removed again.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 01:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

   He just committed bad behavior! I vandal-binned him for edit warring. AgingHippie had told me to do that for edit warring, but now says it isn't proper for edit warring. AND, he wants to restore sysop even tho Avenger just edit warred, It makes no fucking sense at all. Please consider what the full posture of the positions are here!---Mona- (talk) 02:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

4. I haven't seen him abuse the powers that he had, my only real complaint about him is his stubborn views, and if we were to ban everyone I disagreed with this would be a VERY lonely wiki. CorruptUser (talk) 03:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
5. Haven't seen any abuse of sysop powers - only reason to strip them is to ensure they can't edit pages locked to the sysop level. If they makes a bad edit, undo it with the click of a button. Tielec01 (talk) 04:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

   About as effective as wetting one's pants to get warm: "undo it with the click of a button." When some people have tried that, they have been accused of contributing to an edit war tango. Alec Sanderson (talk) 10:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

   Paravant left Avenger de-mopped for many reasons, but also so he could sysop-lock pages to stop Avenger from warring.---Mona- (talk) 15:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

6. Give him his mop back. And while we're at it, take Mona's.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 14:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
7. I don't see why we shouldn't give him the Mop. As long as there is some more consensus on the Israel/Zionism page, then he deserves to get his Sysop status back. He hasn't abused Sysop, and probably doesn't. If he does end up getting out of hand, then you can take his mop away. You mean to tell me the tamales were spiked?! ^{Say hi! Look here!} 18:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
8. I had a think about this, and I'm willing to give it a shot. It can always be revoked if it's abused. Carpetsmoker (talk) 20:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
9. If Mona gets it, he gets it. --Castaigne (talk) 23:17, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

   Great spiteful vote there. ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:19, 26 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

   It's honestly not spiteful. Really, if we're going to allow pro-Pally Mona to preach, then I am absolutely in favor of her opposite number preaching as well. Call it a personal balance fallacy; I believe in equal time for fanatics. --Castaigne (talk) 13:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

   Nothing stops Avenger from preaching without a mop, besides when locking or blocks are used. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 18:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

   With the small but important distinction that Mona can simply insert her crap, edit war over it and thaen sysop-lock it... I can't do that - even though I never would, because I consider this a tactic down to which I will not stoop... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

   And here we see Avenger implicitly acknowledge that what they want to insert is crap. :) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 18:47, 27 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

10. KOMF 00:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
11. Bigger wiki guns, bigger wiki wars. Shock and fucking awe. Grab your popcorn. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 21:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

No

1. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. that's a No. ^{— Unsigned, by: -Mona- / talk / contribs}
2. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:23, 26 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

   I know there is no established rule around here for that, but I would still like to hear a reason - any reason really - that makes you draw your conclusions... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

3. Slim hope of finding coherence in this crazy quilt of a coop, but here goes. Avenger is not a "regular," he is a voluminous blusterer who repeats baseless assertions, hoping that low-information readers will believe him. It is not exactly a Gish gallop, but it is a common enough type of rhetorical chicanery. All you need to know about him is here, where he claims he could be doing some useful work, but, alas, is suffering the ignominy of being half-way through an hour-long block. To be fair, he did a little editing of the Somalia article once the block expired... True to his form, the edit was a "reference" that amounted to a parenthetical aside. (Insisting on his right to use refs on talk pages was one of the tedious episodes in his history. Mended those wicked ways, he says he has, but I don't yet trust him.) He is a shit stirrer. Issuing him a mop will make it harder for competent good-faith editors (whose numbers are growing fewer, as RW circles the drain) to rein him in. Alec Sanderson (talk) 10:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

   Well, I am a polarizing figure disliked by AH has Distinguished Old Man status around here -- he wants me to get off his lawn -- so we're gonna lose. AH can do pretty much anything he wants, and since he dislikes me that's unfortunate. Even if it means reversing Paravant's sensibly handling of Avenger AH will lead the crowd there and that will be that.---Mona- (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

4. nah bro Ghost (talk) 11:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
5. Not in a pink fit - David Gerard (talk) 21:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
6. No. SolPyre (talk) 23:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
7. Nyet Typhoon (talk) 08:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Goat

1. I've not been paying super much attention and wish this coop case were a bit clearer on the exact problem. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
2. Not been paying much attention either, and the mess here is making me less inclined to touch it. Abstain, yo. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 18:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Should he be vandal binned?

Can't see why. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 23:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes

1. Yes. For edit warring constantly. Yet again today. Against me and 142BoN as well as others who'd previously settled that section at BLM. I"M NOT ADVOCATING A PERMANENT BIN. I SAID 2 DAYS. ^{— Unsigned, by: -Mona- / talk / contribs}

   I may be mistaken (first of all, you don't provide any link or source for your accusation), but usually an edit war cannot be sustained by just one user or one side. And the usual resolution to disagreements over content are a discussion on the appropriate talk page... Not vandal binning Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

   (edit conflict)For the record, I only changed something back on BLM after someone changed a long-standing version and I have yet to see someone dispute the factual accuracy of my changes to content. Furthermore I changed some wikipedia links from the style that makes them look like internal links to our wpl template, which Aging Hippie agrees is better for our readers. Same goes for the fact tags. Hence, I don't quite see your point. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

   AgingHippie would agree you are a paragon of reason if it would assit him in any dispute with me. 142BoN was involved. You behaved with us both as you do with everyone.---Mona- (talk) 00:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

   Paranoia is not becoming. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

   I'm sorry, but most of the edits Avenger did to the BLM page yesterday were reasonable. The edits that you reverted certainly were, and he wasn't "Edit-warring", IMHO Carpetsmoker (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

   Avenger put in some ok edits with some that were not. He kept making a change that 142BoN and I both disagreed with. I didn't mean to (and don't think I did) revert the sources. Either way, it wasn't my intention -- it was the text he, 142 and I were not agreeing on. You have no idea how much time and trouble he has consumed on these Israel-related pages. It's not unreasonable to assume that most of his edits are bullshit, especially when I see him reverting 142.---Mona- (talk) 03:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Only when he's edit warring

Guys: I only had planned to bin him for two days; never did I propose a permanent VB. He was edit warring. So, are you not in agreement with me? He should be binned, if not for two days, then for some period?---Mona- (talk) 04:17, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

1. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:24, 26 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

   That's the only time I VB anyone, as I've told Ryu he should also do. Trolling on talk pages (UNLESS it's spam) is not sufficient reason.---Mona- (talk) 00:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

   Yes, but we don't keep people in the vandalbin unless all they do is spam/vandalize. We don't use vandalbinning in the same way as we do blocks (and a block of 2 days would be pretty long in RW culture). 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:39, 26 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

   So you're saying, contrary to AgingHippie, I should not have been VBing, I should have been blocking for edit warring?---Mona- (talk) 00:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

   Or you could temporarily lock the page, like AgingHippie did with Zionism after IP-Avenger popped up there. All of these are options, pretty much the only thing to keep in mind (besides relevant bits of the Community Standards) is that there's a general convention to keep expiry times short (though exceptions to this sometimes occur). 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:54, 26 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

2. When behaviour (edit-warring or otherwise) warrants a vandal-binning then so be it. This applies to all RW editors. We do not need a special policy for one specific user --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 01:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

   But it is your understanding that the VB is appropriate -- for some period we are not specifying yet -- when an editor edit wars against the majority? I've been on a learning curve and had seen Paravant quite frequently sysop- or mod-lock a page -- often to stop Avenger. But when I did that, AgingHippie told me, a few weeks ago, not to ever lock the page and only to VB for edit warring. Now he says not to VB for edit warring because...well, it has something to do with his view of me and my interactions with Avenger changing what he AH the policies actually are here. This is all most confusing for a good faith sysop and editor (me) trying to learn the proper protocols.---Mona- (talk) 02:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

   In answer to your first question, probably yes. But isn't that a policy discussion subject, rather than a coop case brought against a specific editor?--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 03:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

   Well, Avenger was edit warring. So, what should be done about that if not the VB?---Mona- (talk) 03:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

   I will say this again in small words, in the hopes that you understand: I do not have any particular view about you. Moving forward from there, the advice I gave you was given in the context of, what looked to me like a new user who seemed to be here only to grind an axe. In the weeks that have gone by, AOTB has shown a desire to stick around and contribute to the community; sometimes he does okay on that front, sometimes, it seems, not so much. But at this point, I don't want to see his user rights bounce around like a pinball. therefore, I opened a Coop case in which the community will decide what his status should be. This has nothing to do with you, or whatever feelings you seem to think I have towards you. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 02:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

   "what looked to me like a new user who seemed to be here only to grind an axe" Nonsense. You're telling me you lied because you didn't think I was the right kind of new user? Obviously, you cannot be relied upon when asked about the protocols here; your views change with the wind. You abused your powers to de-mop me last week and were chastised for doing so. You have a bug up your ass where I am concerned, and have made that clear in intemperate and foul comments to me that others called you on. Avenger's user rights have been "bouncing around" due to his own chosen behavior.---Mona- (talk) 03:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

   No -- sorry, I guess I wasn't clear enough for you: I thought AOTB was a "new user who seemed to be here to griend an axe." I said nothing about what kind of user I thought you were. As for the rest of your diatribe against me: okay. I'm sure the Coop case you have launched against me will lead to my being pilloried or drawn and quartered, or whatever it is you want. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 03:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

3. If he edit wars, then yes, bin or ban to let him cool off. Otherwise, whatever. CorruptUser (talk) 03:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

No

1. Not a vandal nor a spammer. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{THAT IS STILL LEGAL TENDER. I AM SANDWICH LAWYER.} 23:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
2. I've seen Avenger do good edits on other (non-Israel related) pages; limiting him to 1 edit/30 min site-wide is a bit too harsh, IMHO. Edit warring can be stopped by him not being a sysop, and you (or someone else) sysop locking the page, right? I think you said somewhere last week that worked quite well? Carpetsmoker (talk) 00:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

   Nope. AgingHipppie says I can't protect a page when Avenger is edit warring. He told me that is not policy here. He gave me a list of protected pages and said only those were to be protected. He said binning was the tool for edit warring. So, what should be done?---Mona- (talk) 03:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

3. As above. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 23:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
4. Vandal bin - original intent was to slow down people who vandalised the wiki. A concept so far removed from where we are now that it seems unbelievable. Making edits you disagree with is not vandalising - posting dick pics in articles is, or replacing the contents with slurs against RW. Incredible to reflect that there was a time when vandalism wouldn't get you banned given our current crop of sysops - but then I guess when you fight monsters too long... Tielec01 (talk) 04:19, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

   I'd say inserting propagandist bullshit is just as much vandalism as a dick picture. And he's done exactly that plenty of times in the past. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 04:22, 26 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

5. He can make very informed decision on any pages that aren't Zionism/Israel related. That said, if you're going to punish him within reasonable bounds, at least let him edit on other pages that won't stir up a shitfest. You mean to tell me the tamales were spiked?! ^{Say hi! Look here!} 05:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
6. He is neither a vandal nor a spammer. Fuck off, Mona.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 14:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
7. No, he just disagrees. That's not a vandal. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
8. No. His disagreement with you is not vandalism. --Castaigne (talk) 23:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
9. KOMF 00:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments

Then what do you do with a user who won't stop reverting when he's a minority? ^{— Unsigned, by: -Mona- / talk / contribs}

I've seen Avenger do good edits on other (non-Israel related) pages; limiting him to 1 edit/30 min site-wide is a bit too harsh, IMHO. Edit warring can be stopped by him not being a sysop, and you (or someone else) sysop locking the page, right? I think you said somewhere last week that worked quite well? Carpetsmoker (talk) 00:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it does. But see below where I created the "what do you do" section. AgingHippie specifically would not let me do that (lock a page) and said to VB. Now, he's reneging on that because he deeply dislikes me.---Mona- (talk) 00:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

No, I am changing my approach because it has become more and more apparent that AOTB is not the only problem in your perennial dispute with him. You'll do better if you refrain from reading others' acts through mistaken understandings of their mind sets. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 00:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Nope, don't buy it. But even if I'm wrong about your motives, you're wrong here.---Mona- (talk) 00:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, we'll see what consensus emerges from the process. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 00:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Mona, psychological projection much? I mean, really, remember when you defended that looney racist Cynthia McKinney? You were the ONLY one supporting her? And ignoring all the evidence that we had to gather and cite when it should've been obvious just how awful this woman was? CorruptUser (talk) 03:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

What I remember is that you and a few others were compelled to delete edits because you could not source them, and/or your sources did not support your claims. I'm big into credible sourcing, as Ryulong is now learning to his sorrow. In any event, why you introduced this non sequitur into the coop discussion is hard to understand.---Mona- (talk) 03:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Holy shit, Mona, you really are that dense. CorruptUser (talk) 03:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, yes, I'm so dense I know what constitutes treason at law. Unlike you, who toddles around making edits and reverts under a completely erroneous view of that matter.I also recall a bunch of points under "crazy" or whatever in the McKinney article y'all had to delete cuz it wasn't so.---Mona- (talk) 04:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Which crazy point was that? IIRC, I just walked away because I wasn't really that interested in fighting with you...CorruptUser (talk) 04:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't fucking recall. I do recall watching the crazy list shrink and then you and whoever would go hunting for other stuff to put on it, stuff you could source. My middle name could be "credible source." I take that message everywhere, and here that means: from Avenger, to Ryulong, to you. I hold my ground; don't let it go, unless there is given a credible source. Without it, the claim goes.---Mona- (talk) 04:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Question on policy

AgingHippie, above you wrote: "No, I am changing my approach because it has become more and more apparent that AOTB is not the only problem in your perennial dispute with him." So, the longstanding policy you claimed existed , i.e., that sysops should vandal bin for edit warring, is now an "approach" you are "changing" because of me and my (widely shared) disdain for Avenger? Please do explain how my status where Avenger is concerned alters longstanding RW protocols and changes what is proper policy?---Mona- (talk) 00:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

What is the proper management of a user who constantly reverts even when they are a minority?

AgingHippie on why I should not protect a page to sysop only to stop Avenger:

Mona, this is how it works here. If someone is edit-warring, bin them, and undo their edits as needed. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 08:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

---Mona- (talk) 00:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but, the more I look at this, the more I see two persistent edit-warrers, you being one of them. And, at least on the BLM page, youu were edit-waring putting the wrong types of links into the page, IIRC. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 00:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

You do not recall correctly. I am not Avenger, and when I edit war it is like when Paravant does it; against unreasonable people when I am in the majority. You are simply changing your criteria now -- which you held up as the time-honored way things have always been done here-- because you dislike me. It won't work and it won't make me leave.---Mona- (talk) 00:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Mona I don't think interpreting things as motivated by some personal like or dislike against a certain person is going to do you much good. But that is neither here nor there. In the current binning situation, you were rather obviously reverting mostly cosmetic changes to the BLM article, that actually improved it as well as removing fact tags for things that can obviously be provided a citation for... And I may remind you that you have in the past engaged in reversions where you were clearly in the minority. Or done silly stuff with the express purpose of annoying another user Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the {{wpl}}-link edits were specifically the ones Mona left alone. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 04:30, 26 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

To continue, this exchange occurred on my talk page when I VBed and was supported for doing so. (I'm ignoring Avenger, as I usually do).

Ah, if it isn't Arisboch's IP with previous incriminating edits. ;) If you read the last bits of the section just above this one though, you'll notice Mona is just following AgingHippie's advice. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 16:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Yup. I'd been skittish about that tool but AH said it's the solution.---Mona- (talk) 17:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Well done, -Mona- Scream!! (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

But now, it's the wrong thing to do according to...AgingHippie. Hmmm.---Mona- (talk) 00:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

You make far to many sections. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 04:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd say the problem is more that the comments are so all over the place. I mean, whoa, this is getting hallucinative. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 04:32, 26 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

Yeah, ok, 142, feel free to compact/rearrange my shit as you see fit. I'm going to bed.---Mona- (talk) 04:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Summary re: AOTB.

Four votes in favour of letting Avenger keep his mop, two against; one vote for him being perma-binned, three in favour of no binning, and three in favour of binning as required, which is actually the closest to what the guidelines say. He keeps his mop and stays out of the bin unless he misbehaves. Much of the rest going of the rails with discussions about some unrelated article and whatabouterry, and Mona complaining about me, which should be addressed in the case below. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 03:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

A summary section less than half a day into a coop? Lets atleast let the circus revolve a full day.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 04:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I was trying to close the thing because most of it is Mona talking about me, and it seemed to be going off the rails with accusations about totally unrelated articles, but other voices prevailed. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 04:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

RollerCoaster Tycoon taught me that things going off the rails is always a good thing.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 04:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

No, it's a fun thing. You lose a couple of guests and no one wants to ride your coaster for a while. Speaking of which, anyone else excited that they are finally making another rollercoaster tycoon game? RollerCoaster Tycoon world...CorruptUser (talk) 04:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I just want to play zoo Tycoon and blockade the entrance just in time for the lion enclosure walls to fall. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 04:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Lol, you should get the dinosaur expansion. And see if there's any people running around on high heels guiding big predators into attacking each other. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 04:54, 26 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

theyve already gone through5 different developers for roller coaster tycoon world, dpont hold your dicks out Ghost (talk) 11:19, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Rollercoaster tycoon also thought me that people will not be happy until you build some ice cream parlours. Where's the icecream?! Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:17, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Voting for the sysop yes/no is fairly pointless, because that's not the real issue here

The problem here, as I see it, is that there are several editors with radically different viewpoints on a topic, and no clear way to solve disputes. On top of that, I'm sensing a growing amount of animosity and even hostility between both sides.

While everyone agrees that Avenger's behaviour has been somewhat problematic in the past, almost everyone seems to agree that his behaviour has improved, and in all likelihood he'll get his sysop soon (if not now, then in a month). But that doesn't "fix" anything, there's still the dispute.

First, I think it's a good idea if all involved parties take a break and a moment to meditate on this. Literally, meditate. Not kidding. A Buddhist monk once explained that meditation is a way to clear the mind of distractions to see things are they truly are, not how you perceive them. I don't know if this is actually Buddhist philosophy, or just something the monk made up, but I've found it to be rather useful. I think everyone could benefit with some perspective, and try to be more understanding of the viewpoints of other people (and the whole situation in general). "Meditation" phrased like this is just another way of saying "have a good think about it", but I find that calling it "meditation" and putting oneself in "meditation mode" makes it easier to think clearly and leave emotion and bias behind as much as possible... Anyway, whatever works for you people, this works for me ;-)

After that, I think it might be a good idea to make a few agreements. The 2 most obvious are:

1. What constitutes an edit war? (IMHO last night's edits on BLM were not an edit war)
2. What to do if an edit war occurs?

Perhaps there are other things ... but these are probably two good questions to start with...

Well, that's my advice ;-) Thanks for reading. Carpetsmoker (talk) 20:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I like it, great suggestion :-) -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

AgingHippie

Can't be bothered to make informed decisions, apparently. He seriously just opened a 'coop case' to which everyone who knows anything about Avenger knows the blatant answer (and this after mopping the latter to spite Mona). Despite his uninterested stance, he constantly acts like the resident know-it-all of the wiki. Regularly commits the style over substance fallacy when deciding who he's gonna arbitrarily patronize (or not) for not following his interpretation of how the wiki should be/run/be run. I'm not proposing specific disciplinary actions (not that I discourage them), but fuck this topic was way overdue. Let's open the floodgates. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:13, 26 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

There won't be any "floodgates." I withdrew it, but you say I can't. AH can do anything he wants to, and change policy at the drop of a dime depending on what suits him at any particular moment. The majority has no problem with any of that, so this is pointless. Some animals are more equal than others. THIS IS HOW I'VE SEEN PEOPLE PUT COMMENT IN A STRING WHEN ANSWERING A TOP COMMENT. IT ISN'T "MY PERSONAL FORMATTING" FFS---Mona- (talk) 19:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes! BOW DOWN TO THE HOLY GOAT AND THE JERBOA HER CONSORT, INFIDELS!!!!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem isn't that AH gets everything that he wants, it's that you aren't getting everything you want so it looks like you are having a tantrum. Calling the people around you animals, by goats sake, is not really endearing any more than the paranoia is. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘FFS, are you illiterate Emerald? Have you not read Orwell? Do you think he was actually calling human beings animals? Policies, those that are proper and those that are not, vary here according to who is using the tool, and who the target is. George Orwell wrote a book addressing that kind of situation.---Mona- (talk) 19:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Nope, nor have I ignored the about half dozen coops where you shriek like a howler monkey (using the animal analogy) every time you don't get your way in the archive. The spirit of the law does play more here than the letter, sometimes to my dismay as well, but there's a wide world out there for people that no longer desire to be subject to it. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

If you are culturally illiterate I can't help it. I've never before encounterd someone online who was unfamiliar with that Orwell quote. But so it goes. And as for the "spirit of the law," that's no way to run things. If the rules change according to who is using them, and to whom they are applied, that's just naked power politics. Which is to say, you know, what Orwell was getting at. Insulting me doesn't change that.---Mona- (talk) 20:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I found something that's inconvenient and I was able to include you in us animals so of course I am culturally illiterate. Turn about is always fair play :-) You can't just say "Orwell" at someone and they just roll over and give you what you want...nor do out of place quotes trump reason. One thing you should probably get from Animal Farm as well is that those wanting to insurrect the current order don't always have everyone's best interest at heart. Don't listen to propaganda from the pigs, or from people screaming anything that doesn't agree with them is Orwellian, and think for yourself. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Well Mona, for one, I started this coop case, so it's kinda up to me to withdraw it or not. Second, we don't delete discussions/votes, we archive them. Thirdly, I can turn this case into a serious coop at a moment's notice. I just need to do it at the right moment. But if that's not something you think I should pursue, feel free to say so. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:41, 26 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

Er, no, I'm super sure I started the coop case. At any rate, this is all a bunch of joking about AH's misbehavior, actions that would be taken seriously if most others did the same. But you seem to think you can make it a serious matter. I don't think they'll let you, but go for it, if you want.---Mona- (talk) 19:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Good luck with this. Keep me posted on how it pans out. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 00:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Should we also coop (insert other username here) and be done with it? As a matter of fact, I was rather close to cooping myself (for slightly different reasons) but refrained from it, because I could not find a precedent for a "self-coop" and did not want to set one Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

You, AH, seem pretty sure that you hold some exalted status that can make anything go your way, EVEN siding with Avenger when he's behaving as Avenger does. Well, dude, I'm not going anywhere. This power play to get at me won't work even if you prevail, which is unlikely. If you want to sysop Avenger --AVENGER! -- you truly do not care about this wiki.---Mona- (talk) 00:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

No, he just doesn't give a fuck about your feud with him.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 14:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Party on kids. Nothing and no one keeps me from The Walking Dead. Followed by Talking Dead. And certainly not bullshit about Avenger. See y'all later.-Mona- (talk) 00:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

This will happen: Arisboch and Sorte Slyngle will join the issues on the side of Avenger and AgingHippie -- entirely regardless of the merits. They will do this because Avenger completes their trio of dedicated Zionists who are deeply unhappy with me and the majority of editors who do not share their unqualified positive views of Israel and Zionism. (AgingHippie does not share their substantive views but is functionally a fourth member during these disputes because he doesn't want me here -- due to my frequent editing of articles touching on Zionism which cause the Zionists to go batshit. AH has said this makes RW "not fun.")

Presumably, some of the many editors who have seen Avenger in action and understand that he does not behave well, hopefully these will chime in. I especially am interested to know what Paravant has to say; only about a week ago Avenger asked Aging Hippie to upgrade his status, but AH would not do it because he said he would not "undermine" Paravant. Well, now I guess it is ok to undermine Paravant, as well as to suddenly find that vandal-binning for edit warring is not proper after all.---Mona- (talk) 02:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Man, people are lining up out the door to get in on this action.... Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 04:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Woo, let's hear it for some passive aggressive burns! Peace. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 04:38, 26 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

I'm just disappointed. I'm pretty sure this is the first time I've been Cooped in eight years here, and I was kinda looking forward to it. I honestly don't know what would be worse -- being tarred and feathered, or mostly ignored. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 04:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I know it won't happen. You and your "eight years" allow you to do as you will. It's human sociology and politics. You can carry on as you like, even delete my comments, and I really can't do anything; I can only seek redress against new-ish editors. I trusted you and your eight years to give it to me straight about how to deal with Avenger, and, because you dislike me, when I did as you said -- exactly as you directed -- you pulled the floor out from under me. You, you are Teflon-coated. And act like it.---Mona- (talk) 04:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, maybe the right people just haven't woken up yet. I hear Arisboch is always up for some tarring and feathering. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 04:43, 26 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

I'll help. *ahem*.

Dear Sir or Madam,

It is in the strongest of possible words that I wish to convey my displeasure upon you. It has come to my attention that you have questionable parentage, you appear to be attracted to people of the opposite gender (in fact, dare I say it, you are attracted to both genders and perhaps a few categories in between), you are unloved by all of those gender combinations/have done the horizontal monster mash with several dozen a week depending upon your gender, your writing belies a horrible mental deficiency, your choice in local politics leaves quite a lot to be desired, your breath indicates a disdain for proper oral hygiene, your choice of transportation is proof that your genitals are too small and/or large depending on your gender, and it would be of the greatest possible benefit to everyone you hold dear if you were to purchase no less than eight bars of soap. I recommend lye soap; nothing eliminates uncleanliness quite as efficiently as lye soap.

Most unkind regards,

Lord Wesley Ridgewell Trickelbank CorruptUser (talk) 04:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Should he be de-mopped?

He needs to be de-mopped. Or given conditions to avoid it, or otherwise addressed by the community. Last weeks he abused his sysop powers to de-mop be when I disagreed with him on matters relating to Ryulong. Tonight, he deleted my comments from his talk page. He told me lies about proper protocols earlier this month, which I followed, only to find out he doesn't actually believe what he told me is accurate and didn't believe it at the time. ^{— Unsigned, by: -Mona- / talk / contribs}

Bugger off, YOU need to be de-sysopped. You do abuse your sysop-tools, not he. No-one's gonna tolerate you using your sysop-tools to lead a feud against him (which I missed. Again. I always miss all the fun shit here. fuck).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 14:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah, if it isn't Arisboch talking like they know everything while in the same paragraph admitting that they missed it all. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:54, 26 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

The page histories still exist.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 08:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Crucified, stabbed by a spear and made to drink vinegar

1. My only concern is that this might be going a little too easy on AH. Tielec01 (talk) 04:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

   It's the case, then, that he can do whatever he wants here, is that right?---Mona- (talk) 04:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

2. Obviously. This guy is worse than Marcus Cicero, Bodhan, TK, and Heart of Gold all rolled into one. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 04:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

So, it's just a joke? AH can do anything and doesn't have to take this seriously because he confidently knows no one else will, either. He can do as he pleases and won't be so much as rebuked.

I had been given to understand that this place desperately needs new blood; that it's dying. I joined, and I've manged to recruit one person, tho he's too busy to do much for a bit yet. Someone tell me why any new blood should want to come here, if AH's "eight years" mean he can even delete my comments on a talk page without any repercussions, at all?---Mona- (talk) 05:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Please note that as per the standards of the website, a user may delete talk page comments if he or she deems them to be trolling -- given that you have made noise about me on at least two pages today, repeating those comments on a third fell well within the bounds of what I reasonably consider to be trolling, and I thus removed them. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 05:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I have made "noises" that are accurate descriptions of your behavior. This same topic was being discussed at your page, I do not fucking "troll." I was explaining my position on an issue in which I am directly involved. Moreover, I am given to understand we are not to delete talk page comments unless some newbie is spewing irrelevant crap about nothing.---Mona- (talk) 15:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah, but you forgot the cardinal rule. Deleting her comments, even for any legitimate reason with long standing history to why, means you get coop'ed and threatened with banning. Remember if you aren't with her...you are against her. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what that's based on. Mona didn't start this coop and no one said anything about banning. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:50, 26 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

I say we a take a page out of the United Nations' book for dealing with horrible tyrants

I propose that we follow the example set here by the United Nations and and all be very, very angry with Aging Hippie. Then, we should all write him a letter telling him how angry we are. Gooniepunk (talk) 10:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd forgotten that Marcus had decreed AH to be a tyrant. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 10:17, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, he certainly did. Which is all the more reason to have a letter-writing campaign to tell Foster the Cruel (aka: Aging Hippie) how angry we are. Gooniepunk (talk) 10:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

If only Father Vivian were still here, he could gather us in a circle to sing Kum Ba Ya. <sniffle> I miss that kindly old git. Aging Hippie, on the other hand, needs a good stern talking to, I agree. I nominate Goonie to work up something sufficiently caustic. Alec Sanderson (talk) 10:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll gladly write a very sternly worded letter to Aging Hippie if that is what the site desires. I will even publicly deliver it to him to make sure he is publicly shamed. Gooniepunk (talk) 10:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Having considered the matter for some hours, I think a quiet but emphatic "tut, tut" will suffice. Also, it's good to see you showing up once in a while. Alec Sanderson (talk) 14:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The UN policy is to kiss their fucking asses.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 14:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

If you want to kiss mine, you'll have to at least buy me a drink first, and maybe put some Marvin Gaye on the hi-fi. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

No thanks, but I appreciate the offer XD XD XD And I also don't consider you a horrible tyrant, so you're out of luck...--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Change names and start the same shit yet again

Why not his usual approach - David Gerard (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Drag him out to the streets and publicly execute him

And I'm being too kind here. He clearly deserves much more for his horrid crimes. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{In dire need of a violent twat fumigation} 22:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

AgingHippie should have his fingernails cut too short and then be forced to wear the world's itchiest sweater

Just try to scratch! CorruptUser (talk) 22:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

AH should eat a cactus

And post it on youtube Typhoon (talk) 08:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I've eaten cactus before. The trick is to just stick to prickly pears...CorruptUser (talk) 03:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Tied to a chair and be forced to listen to all of Justin Bieber's albums

You're all too soft on him!!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 08:37, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Not just any chair, but THE COMFY CHAIR. With only a cup of coffee at eleven. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 18:16, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Pretty much everything above this section title

Can we archive it, please? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 13:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Now wouldn't that be nice? Archive this pile of crap and lock MLP. Then RW can function again.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 13:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Thirded. If Mona gets to run around loose, I see no reason why we should restrain Avenger. --Castaigne (talk) 13:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Well there is just the small matter left to resolve whether I'll be mopped or not... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I will count the votes tomorrow morning. Sufficient time will have passed by then. --Castaigne (talk) 18:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I might wrap stuff up and archive in a couple hours. There's just one thing I'd like to check first. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 18:11, 27 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

Brx's ban length

This is more an informative prodding than anything else: Can anyone else make sense of for how long he's supposed to be banned based on the ban long? Because I sure can't. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:04, 4 November 42015 AQD (UTC)

IIRC, that was a decision by last year's RMF board. I don't know exactly what was decided by them, other than they continued extending the ban for block evasion. Better ask Stabby or DG. Gooniepunk (talk) 19:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

It's here. Bicycle^wheel 19:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

That's a coop about RNS and a vote on to what extent the complaints Brx raised were bull, but I don't see anything there about Brx needing to be banned, let alone for how long. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 20:42, 4 November 42015 AQD (UTC)

It gives the background. I assume the discussion was either within the RMF board, or elsewhere in the October 2014 fossil records. Bicycle^wheel 20:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

A little more here. Bicycle^wheel 21:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

So it looks like the officially decided period was 6 months and then people fiddled with the expiry time a couple times over block evasion. Disregarding a permaban by Nutty which, going by the block reason, wasn't a public or particularly non-arbitrary decision, it looks like Brx should be free to go by now. Or has there been indication that they'll likely reoffend? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:18, 4 November 42015 AQD (UTC)

It is brx, the odds of reoffending are nearly 100%. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 21:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

And if I may have a moment of childishness... THAT'S WHAT MAKES IT FUN! WalkerWalkerWalker 21:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't, honestly. He liked to antagonize litigiously, and sometimes physically, aggressive people in ways that made Nutty look like a perfect little girl scout. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 21:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

What do we gain by unbanning him? Bicycle^wheel 21:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Nothing much, I'd gander. But it's kind of atypical of such a question to be asked in the RW environment, though. Since when was permabanning a thing we did? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:32, 4 November 42015 AQD (UTC)

Basically nothing, I just wasn't aware we had permabanned him. Not that it aggrieves me much more than to comment about it. | @Notabon, we've permabanned a number of users over the years, it takes a lot to make it happen though. (Tisane and the massive drama + pedophillia apologetic, Exiled and his being a massive tool who doxxed people, etc, --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 21:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but a real permaban? Even the Mikemikevs only get a couple months/years, usually. Technically EE can still come back after 10 years, they just need to remember the wiki exists. Admittedly Tisane would have to come up with some rather amazing shit to sit out their 1000 year-ban. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:42, 4 November 42015 AQD (UTC)

Permabanning has only happened when users put this site or its users in jeopardy. Mikemikev is an asshole, but he's never doxxed people or done anything to put RW in a legally compromising position. Gooniepunk (talk) 21:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Mikemikev is permabanned. It hasn't helped much. There are a few doxxers in the perma-alcatraz too. Bicycle^wheel 21:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

If RW still exists in ten years and EE comes back, i'll personally reban him for 1000 for good measure. 10 years was just an arbitrary number chosen to avoid using an infinite length. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 21:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Keep in mind some facts: somebody (not Brxbrx) was the one who originally inserted libelous claims into the Kevin Martin article (Kevin Martin, by the way, has threatened numerous times to sue RW). The content was removed. Brxbrx re-inserted it. It was removed again. Brxbrx then engaged in an edit war over whether or notit was libelous, with Gerard, myself, Nutty Roux and others telling him it was and giving him information on what consititutes libel. He still would hear none of it, and continued to re-insert the libelous information. A long, drawn out battle ensued with me taking it up to the RMF, since it directly affected them (they are the ones who would be sued, not Brxbrx). A month later, they made the decision to ban Brxbrx on the grounds that he was willingly and intentionally putting RationalWiki and the RMF in legal jeopardy. Gooniepunk (talk) 22:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Has Brx made any noise about returning, or is this conversation strictly academic? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 00:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

There's been some limited editing activity. Before they were banhammered again. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:25, 5 November 42015 AQD (UTC)

Long time to hold a grudge. I'd say go to the current board for advice but they haven't had a meeting yet as it seems only DG is interested in getting the team together. In any case, the term of the ban expired if it was meant to be a perma-ban why wasn't a perma-ban made? This is altogether a stupid, frivolous coop case with a user who LANCBs every other week trying to dredge up old grudges. Let it go. Tielec01 (talk) 00:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Your facts are wrong, Tielec. 1) Brxbrx was permabanned, but somebody unbanned them. 2) I'm giving historical context, but I honestly have no dog in this fight. Gooniepunk (talk) 00:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The last legitimate block was Stabby blocking him for a year for block evasion. Before Nutty left he permabanned as a parting shot, but that was undone almost instantly and almost certainly a unilateral decision.

Board decisions are opaque, as they haven't published minutes for years but going off what Stabby said here the ban certainly wasn't infinite. RNS doesn't speak for the board as he wasn't a board member at the time and isn't a board member now. Happy for a board member to give further insight to the length of the ban that they agreed upon. Tielec01 (talk) 01:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I was the one that readjusted the ban length to what it was before Nutty's tantrum, on the basis that all the bans he made then were part of the same Parthian shot. I had a quick look to see why the ban was in place and didn't learn more than the summary here. I assumed that the pre-tantrum block length was correct. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 11:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, well, as I stated at the very beginning, nobody has any idea what the RMF actually decided and, as such, it's best not to overrule anything they did. That being said, when I wake up later today (unless somebody wants to beat me to it), I will notify Stabby and DG that we require their clarification here. Gooniepunk (talk) 11:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Looking through my email archive, Brxbrx was blocked for 6 months by the board in Oct 2014. It's long expired - David Gerard (talk) 12:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Aneris

Aneris was sysopped by Carpetsmoker when they've been spending the past several days being anything but "sane". They've been posting Gamergater conspiracy theories on Talk:Anita Sarkeesian and were the cause and a perpetrator on an edit war on Doxing to include the one-off situation of PZ Myers and Rebecca Watson's outing of Eliza Sutton as examples of "people who dox". I don't think this was a very bright idea and I think we're better off without having someone spouting extreme minority conspiracy theories and are only here to whinge about a non-existant authoritarian left with sysop.—Ryulong (talk) 19:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

You may be right. On the other hand, I can't think of a time when posting crazy stuff on talk pages was worthy of sanction. Easier for one user to ignore something that bothers them than to drag the whole community in to police crazy talk. Edit warring is more problematic, but if it was one instance over one article, I again am not sure if anybody has ever lost the mop over that kind of infraction. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 20:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

It goes against the assertion that the user is "sane" to be afforded sysop.—Ryulong (talk) 20:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

He'a disagreeable; he takes a definition of doxing no more useless than any; he once edit-warred briefly. Filing this one under fucking pointless bullshit. WalkerWalkerWalker 20:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

You make a strong case. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 20:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

They're a GG nutter who's rallying against what they perceive as an intractable SJW influence on this website. Which they says on their user page.—Ryulong (talk) 20:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Cool? WalkerWalkerWalker 20:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

That seems to be "not sane" with regards to anything here. That and their insistence that one person being doxxed by "SJWs" is enough to have them listed on doxing along with ED and GG.—Ryulong (talk) 20:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Eh, if they do eventually abuse their sysop bits, I'm sure someone will be around to take them away. We don't need to be in a rush about it. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 20:15, 6 November 42015 AQD (UTC)

Well I'm just not sure where would have been the best place to raise my concerns that this seemed like a Bad Idea®.—Ryulong (talk) 20:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

DlagonDlagon

Block Ryulong for causing and bringing endless drama to the wiki

Given that nearly every coop in the last 12 months has involved Ryulong in one form another, I say block him, and his detractorsand restore some harmony here. I'm so fucking tired of seeing recent changes either filled with Ryulong's Ken-like editing of Gamergate, or Chicken Coops because of Ryulong's Ken-like editing of Gamergate. PsyGremlin^Fale! 13:36, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Whine moved to separate "case" - David Gerard (talk) 13:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Because the angry GG mob (after chasing away one editor) will for sure not target another user in here, lol. Typhoon (talk) 13:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I completely support cooping Ryu, but it needs a formal effort. Not this "afterthought." I have completely reversed my position on Ryo after having given some time to really observing how he edits and never plays well with others. He seems to have an actual disorder, in which he cannot accept -- in any situation -- that someone, even a majority disagrees with him. He will persist in counter-majoritarian behavior, and therefore taking up huge amounts of time and energy from members of this wiki, until he is reined in.---Mona- (talk) 15:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I can think of at least two editors who have said much the same about you, suggesting this isn't a great standard to work to - David Gerard (talk) 15:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

David, I do not behave as Avenger does -- he, btw, is currently blocked for 2 weeks. And if you mean Arisboch as well, that one also does not disturb me. I assure you, I am more than happy to be assessed in comparison with either of those -- or for that matter with Ryu. I do make an effort to be reasonable and I expect reasonableness from others. (Reasonable is a somewhat subjective concept, but I'm also, well, reasonably sure, that a large majority of the most active users do not regard Ryu's behavior as acceptable.) Ryu is not, not remotely, reasonable. And he's consuming an unacceptable amount of time and energy from users who are. ---Mona- (talk) 16:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

You know, I'm not a big fan of Ryu's behaviour on this wiki, but "Block Ryulong for causing and bringing endless drama to the wiki" because DlagonDlagon decided to troll RW? That screams victim blaming. No. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 16:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

"I'm so fucking tired of seeing recent changes either filled with Ryulong's Ken-like editing of Gamergate, or Chicken Coops because of Ryulong's Ken-like editing of Gamergate." Are you trapped in a time loop from half a year ago or something? Stop living in the past. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 16:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Ryu is many things, but "victim" does not spring to mind. That said, if he is cooped it needs to be more formal, with specific citations to the repeated, chronic misbehaviors.---Mona- (talk) 16:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

That Ryu's had his share of problematic behaviour doesn't preclude him from being the victim of trolls. If you want to coop him, go ahead, but don't add "he attracts GG trolls" to the list of 'things he's done wrong'. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 16:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Ryulong hasn't even been that bad about those things lately. He's chilled out a lot. This is gigantically overkill. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 16:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

ikanreed , did you see all the bullshit in the last few days with Ryu re: copyrights?---Mona- (talk) 16:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

"victim of trolls" Please. I mean really. Very, very few people targeted by trolls rise to any sensible use of the word "victim." I've been trolled so many times I'd be rich if I got a dollar for them all. No, the issues with Ryu have zero to do with any trolls bugging him.---Mona- (talk) 16:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, in his case they made up an Encyclopedia Dramatica page for him and have followed him from wikipedia to other websites, including this one. That's above and beyond the usual fare. I haven't had to deal with that, and I even got a death threat once. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 17:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, well, I guess he has had more than the usual share of trolling then. But I understand he was tossed out of WP, for cause. I can sure see why.---Mona- (talk) 17:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll say that IP law is kind of easy for ordinary, intelligent people to misunderstand, so I'm kinda inclined not to assign much in the way of blame there. WalkerWalkerWalker 18:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I feel like I should point out that I have 0 problems in having my actions contested in a reasonable manner by Ryulong, or by anyone else. The problem was that Ryulong at some point just stopped discussing, asserted "it's fair use, period", and reverted the images and effectively started edit warring ... This is a "Ryulong pattern" that's getting a bit tiresome ... At the same time, I've seen worse, from both Ryulong, and others, and in the end it was all resolved. He even sort-of apologized. As far as I'm concerned, that finished it. Carpetsmoker (talk) 18:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Silly coop proposal is silly. Carpetsmoker (talk) 16:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

No, he is an insufferable ass and his own worst enemy. Let it stay that way.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 16:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd be a supporter of permanently de-mopping and imposing rules on him. But in a different case where the specific misbehaviors, over a very long time, are laid out. This isn't it.---Mona- (talk) 16:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I'd take it one step further and say I wouldn't cry if Ryulong were permanently banned just because he's an ass, but that's not a real reason and justification of banning requires specific misbehaviors beyond just bringing drama. Creating drama? Maybe, but just being the drama magnet? No. MarmotHead (talk) 18:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

DlagonDlagon

I'm sick of seeing people block this user for this, that, or the other thing. So, let's settle this once and for all: what do we want to do about DlagonDlagon? Clearly, they have a beef with Ryulong, but it appears to be a mutual hatred (Ryu has been blocking them since they showed up). So let's settle this once and for all. Gooniepunk (talk) 06:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

What specific RW policy or rule(s) has this user violated?---Mona- (talk) 06:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Other than wandalizing Ryulong's userpage when Ryulong LANCB for a few hours, none that I am aware of. Gooniepunk (talk) 06:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, if that is in fact the case, he should have been blocked for an hour or so, or vandal-binned for a day or so. But other than that, a ban is clearly inappropriate.---Mona- (talk) 06:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I do not wish to go into bat for this jerk who is clearly a troll. But he or she did nothing that warrants a serious block.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 06:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Policy proposal

This discussion was moved to RationalWiki talk:Community Standards#Policy proposal.

Block account but not IP

Last week I spent some time making my point that this use is a joke, and not a troll, and that Ryulong needs to lighten up a bit. I still stand by this point as such, but that being said, fuck it, and block it already.

Based on the username and the contents of the edits, it is 1) likely this is a sock of a regular or semi-regular user, and 2) unlikely this account will make meaningful edits to make this wiki a better place.

Ryulong has a (very) low tolerance for these sort of jokes, and is antagonized extremely easy by this. I consider this to be something of a character flaw on Ryulong's part, but this doesn't really change Ryulong's anguish he's feeling over this joke. Do we lose anything by blocking this account? I think not. Do we stand to gain anything? One contributor with less anguish.

In the block log chat someone (I think Mona) also said "If this user, then also Avenger and Ryulong as they're assholes too". The difference is that for all their flaws and problems, these users are still contributing editors. Not so with this account.

So I support, block the user, but not the IP; so the person can still make a new account in case it's not a sock (so that's a block with all the checkboxes unchecked).

(Disclaimer: Above is written before morning coffee; I am not responsible for any bad spelling and/or grammar). Carpetsmoker (talk) 07:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

"The difference is that for all their flaws and problems, these users are still contributing editors." Ryu, yes. (Indeed, I consider the GG article one of our jewels.) But Avenger? He is not an organized thinker or writer, and when he edits even innocuously he inserts gazillions of stupid "references" that are not references; they are rambling editorials. The ratio of his disruption to valuable contribution has to be heavily weighted on the disruption side. In any event, it's preposterous that either Avenger or Ryu are mopped. Sysops need to be able to lock pages against their compulsive bullshit.---Mona- (talk) 22:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

You trying to hijack yet another coop case to have Avenger purged from RW?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 17:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not hijacking anything. I'm explaining my position on sensible policy and in the course of that stating an accurate description of Avenger's participation here.---Mona- (talk) 22:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes

1. As explained above. Carpetsmoker (talk) 07:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
2. As explained below. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 08:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
3. This lame sock is wasting everyone's time with his 'epik trol' bullshit. Typhoon (talk) 08:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
4. They can take their dramawankery somewhere else. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 08:46, 13 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
5. I'd go for the IP as well - David Gerard (talk) 11:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

   If I were gonna block him (I guess so, but I haven't yet seen the latest decapitated chickens) I'd go for the IP, because realistically that's only an inconvenience if he for some reason wants to come here under a different name. WalkerWalkerWalker 12:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

   What if it's a regular making a joke (admittedly in somewhat bad taste)? For example, let's say it's me; I hardly think this joke alone would be enough to ban me (it's not me, but I don't want to point my finger at anyone and somehow insinuate something). Carpetsmoker (talk) 12:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

   BUT you can't not talk shit about other editors! WalkerWalkerWalker 13:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

   Also: by only I meant merely. WalkerWalkerWalker 14:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

   Then they would be able to unblock their own IP - David Gerard (talk) 15:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

6. I support this move, though I think I'm with Gerard on going for the IP as well. If it's a user who was only dicking around and who really intends to contribute constructively, part of that level of integrity is civilly raising the issue of having their real IP unblocked. Point being, we can solve things through discussion - all they need do is participate in that discussion. Thus, there appears to be little need for a benefit of the doubt for trolls. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
7. While I usually oppose blocking like this, it appears very unlikely that DD will contribute anything (even substantial responses to our GG articles) and will instead cause drama like this. Thus, they cause only harm. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 19:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

No

1. One stupid non-threatening naming joke about one editor? No. I'm a pretty reasonable person, but I'm sure I've stepped on toes more harshly (and likely not very harshly) than this single first weak joke by a new account. If that level of harshness justifies a length or perma-ban, this site would lose a lot of people really quickly. MarmotHead (talk) 18:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
2. Ryulong is incredibly thin-skinned, and yet baits trolls like this all the time. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy: you bait the trolls, they appear. To bitch about them offending you after you've baited them into trolling you is asinine and since the level of trolling wasn't overly terrible in the first place, I think any action beyond a simple renaming and shaming of said account is 1) a dangerous precedent to set and 2) completely and utterly asinine. Gooniepunk (talk) 04:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

   Some people seem to be under the impression that choosing the name "DlagonDlagon" is the only objectionable thing this user did. This is not the case. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 04:34, 14 November 42015 AQD (UTC)

   Some people also seem to sympathize with people who bring the drama upon themselves. I don't. Gooniepunk (talk) 04:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

   Is not engaging in victim blaming the same as sympathy now? The main reason why I banned this user and proposed the policy was because they had moments before expressed the intention to perpetuate some sort of feud or whatchamacallit on the site that'd clearly originated from before they joined RW, i.e. off-site drama. Not 'sympathy' of whatever kind. I am still quite astonished that some people disagree with the actions I took. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 04:59, 14 November 42015 AQD (UTC)

3. The absurdity of targeting one relatively inactive alleged troll based on his violation of the RW policy against -- oh, wait! ---Mona- (talk) 04:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
4. Ryulong, stop getting your panties in a bunch without reason.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 17:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

   Why are you talking to Ryulong when they haven't even commented on this coop case? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 17:18, 14 November 42015 AQD (UTC)

   He's obsessed with him and he can't miss a chance to spit at him. Typhoon (talk) 19:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

   I'm not obsessed with him, it's just that the repeated dramata around him jump into my field of vision, when I e.g. take a look at the Recent Changes.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

   Well, since Ryu isn't particularly personally involved in this recent 'dramata', feel free to strike out your own vote. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:44, 14 November 42015 AQD (UTC)

5. I hesitantly vote no, mostly because I'm a stickler for the rules. Now that I can actually see the deleted revisions a long term block seems unjustified by the rules. Vandalbin= yes. Short term block= yes. I read a 'don't bring outside fights to RW' between the lines of the CS and DD is definitely a vandal and uninterested in dialog, but DD just hasn't done enough yet to warrant a long term block. SolPyre (talk) 23:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Goat

• Their name alone is a sign of a troublesome person with no intention of meaningful contribution. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 07:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
• I would like to take a moment to say that this is not particularly high-quality Ryulong-needling. We've all seen better. WalkerWalkerWalker 13:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
• For me, the actual issue here is nothing to do with the account at issue (as Walker³ says, amateur hour trolling) or Ryulong, but that more than one established editor here took leave of their fucking senses and decided that an obvious troll account targeted at one user somehow needed to be given the benefit of the doubt. Fuck's sake. I mean, even if it's a sock and intended as a joke, it's a fucking poor attempt at one and there is zero benefit to leaving it un-nuked. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 16:36, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
• I don't have any issue with banning users who are demonstrated to be here only or primarily to troll another user. But has that been demonstrated? And if so, are we basing this proposed banning on a specific RW policy, or is this entirely ad hoc?---Mona- (talk) 22:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
• Am I missing something? When I go to DD user contributions I see only 4 edits. If we know that DD is a sock of another user trying to get around a block then I don't think we even need a Coop case to block the sock do we? SolPyre (talk) 21:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

  Don't forget to check the deleted contributions. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:00, 14 November 42015 AQD (UTC)

  Some of that -- and it's just a few -- he was replying to other users. Fuzzy asked him if he masturbated to Ryu. He's obviously pissed at Ryu, but others here have said nasty shit to Ryu as well. Hell, I don't recall who, but someone called me a "cunt" and all hell didn't break lose.---Mona- (talk) 22:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

  And why was that "Be kind" comment deleted?---Mona- (talk) 22:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

  Contributions don't get deleted individually. Their talkpage was deleted after they posted their latest dramawankery there. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:17, 14 November 42015 AQD (UTC)

  Mmm I didn't even know that was a thing... Nope, I don't have the permissions to look at that. It doesn't matter, I'll take other people's word the stuff mentioned is there. SolPyre (talk) 22:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

  You do now! :D 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:17, 14 November 42015 AQD (UTC)

Rename this twit no matter what

1. I would take the name as not being mean-spirited mockery iff. he'd ever attempted any serious discussion of norms of Anglicization. WalkerWalkerWalker 20:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

   This isn't about the name, it's about an obviously malicious troll getting banhammered for bringing their dramawankery to the site. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:33, 14 November 42015 AQD (UTC)

   If his moniker is inherently trollish, then by all means change it. But that's not grounds for banning. I've yet to see cited anything remotely resembling a policy this user has violated that specifically is sanctioned with the option of banning. A bunch folk have just decided he's an asshole, so let's ban him, but he hasn't done anything awful.---Mona- (talk) 21:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Ryulong # 2451

I've been thinking this one over for the last hour and you know what, this is something to discuss. the block log shows a clear and total problem with Ryulong being trusted with Sysop tools. Regardless of how far back it was, his decision now to show disapproval of their unrevdel, including "just because they weren't ok revdels doesn't mean you had to undo them" and his habit of abusing sysop tools leaves me 100% confident it'll continue to happen for stupid reasons like "minor vandalism". Whatever reasons Ryulong does need sysop tools for, other users can make use of them for him.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 03:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Fine. I'm relinquishing sysop and I don't give a fuck if I never get it back. Just don't get angry at me when some Gamergate braintrust starts shitting up the pages and I can't fix it.—Ryulong (talk) 03:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I can't imagine he will. WalkerWalkerWalker 03:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Also fix my watchlist so I don't have to see log changes on them.—Ryulong (talk) 03:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Ryulong has a history of "giving up" his sysop powers and then some meat-puppet coming along and restoring them; whatever the sanction is that you all decide on, it must stick. Tielec01 (talk) 03:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@Ryu, I can't imagine somebody else can't stop actual problem users. @Tielic, good point, added to sysopreoke to make sure just nobody can't readd it. ^{— Unsigned, by: Paravant / talk / contribs} (a bit before) 04:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)