RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive40

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Will action be taken against Arisboch as I requested earlier in the article over his continued harassment towards me on this site? - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 05:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

No. Beyond a "Stop being such a dick" notice. Btw, Grave Dancing is fun and all but it didn't help you at all.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 05:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I stand by everything I have said. I still believe wholeheartedly that you are in the wrong. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 05:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
And I will stand by this: Arisboch may be a utter prick who chose the wrong side in the I-P debacle and continues to be wrong on my intentions, but if we are going to censure him, we must censure you as well. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 05:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Arisboch is an asshole to everyone but not in a manner that requires any action. He's an asshole to me, big time, and you don't see me whining about it. In fact, I've insisted on not doing anything to him about it. This isn't a pre-school and we can all take care of ourselves when the problem is just "he said mean things." As long as another user doesn't interfere with a process of productive editing they do not need to be disciplined, and Arisboch does not so interfere.---Mona- (talk) 05:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Balance fallacy
Also it's hypocritical because your main reason for banning Ryu is "He's a dick", but Arisboch is actually abusive, to a much worse degree. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 05:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Like arisboch and Avenger, you misunderstand my wording. If we would punish Arisboch for his actions above, you would have to be punished as well because you were in the end little better. You rarely are, puppet. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 05:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Sigh, if you want to start a coop case against someone, Kitsunelaine, start it as a separate coop case. This way of going about things seems far too reminiscent of sour grapes and (yet) an(other) example of "but he also behaved badly"-justification. I've written something quite similar to you on Paravant's talk page already where I also pointed out that this kind of editor behaviour whataboutism is irrelevant to whether Ryulong's behaviour is acceptable; at most it suggests that other coop cases should be started. As a saying of my home country goes: "You can't wash yourself in the filth of others". ScepticWombat (talk) 05:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
"The abuse victim is just as bad as the abuser because they didn't ignore it"? Also, calling me "Puppet" doesn't make it true. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 05:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

This is unrelated to the current coop case. Start a new one or shush. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 05:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

May I suggest that this section is just deleted? --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 06:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Paravant's targeted abusal of moderation tools[edit]

I made an edit on My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic, emphasizing and elaborating on a previously existing statement that left a lot to be desired (this initial edit can be seen here: http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=My_Little_Pony:_Friendship_Is_Magic&diff=1579008&oldid=1578973 . Having watched this documentary, this seems like a pretty fair and balanced addition to make, as it still acknowledges that the criticisms aren't widespread, though doesn't downplay it to simply "one blogger".

This edit got undone by Tielec01, for a justifiable reason, in the asking of cites (Even though many other similar claims already exist on said page without citations). http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=My_Little_Pony:_Friendship_Is_Magic&diff=1579026&oldid=1579008

I was in the middle of going through google to find instances of this criticism to add as citations to my edit, to reinstate it. I'd shown Ryulong the edit in Skype, and he figured he'd skip the busywork a bit and bring it back with a cite. http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=My_Little_Pony:_Friendship_Is_Magic&diff=1579049&oldid=1579026

I was planning on providing a few more cites to back up my claims of this being a criticism that wasn't simply limited to a small audience, as the initial claim had suggested. Now, an important thing to note here is the timeframe between these edits. Keep this in mind for later Between my post and Tielec's undo, twenty minutes had passed. In this time, I'd been skulking about the recent changes section of the wiki, looking for pages I could improve or comment on (I wound up commenting in the saloon bar, instead). But it is also important to note that Paravant was active in this time, and presumably, keeping an eye on the same page, as a moderator would. However.

Within a minute of Ryulong making his edit on the page, Paravant undid it, without providing a single reason as to why. http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=My_Little_Pony:_Friendship_Is_Magic&diff=1579050&oldid=1579049 Now, if he'd had a problem with my edit before, presumably he'd have been on it before Tielec01 was. But he saw fit to let it remain for at least 17 minutes, given his most recent posting after my edit here http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Paravant&curid=173044&diff=1579011&oldid=1579009

Now, keep in mind: Ryulong's only crime here is providing a cite that someone was asking for. It's hardly worth an undo. The more productive thing would be to hit up google and provide those cites, which as I'd found, were easy to see.

As Paravant hadn't provided a reason, Ryulong undid it. http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=My_Little_Pony:_Friendship_Is_Magic&curid=175671&diff=1579051&oldid=1579050 But again, under a minute, Paravant replied and said "See what the initial reversion said". http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=My_Little_Pony:_Friendship_Is_Magic&curid=175671&diff=1579052&oldid=1579051 He also blocked Ryulong and asked "Do you really want to restart your anti-brony crusade again? You know exactly how that will end". Now, between you and me, it's a little harsh to call providing a citation that someone was asking for a part of an "Anti-Brony crusade". Even then, my edit only further elaborated on something already mentioned in the article. It's hardly turning it into a "hit piece". It was a simple elaboration and clarification on pre-existing material, which normally, would be considered extraordinarily inoffensive.

So, as Paravant had seemed to ask for "more cites" in his second reversion, Ryulong brought the page back with exactly what Paravant had requested. http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=My_Little_Pony:_Friendship_Is_Magic&curid=175671&diff=1579055&oldid=1579054

However, it seems that Paravant dropped the facade of his initial stated reasoning almost instantly, with yet another undo. http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=My_Little_Pony:_Friendship_Is_Magic&curid=175671&diff=1579060&oldid=1579059 This time, he said "We went over this last time, you don't get to turn this article into your hit piece on the fandom just because you dont like them". As we've already established, expanding on pre-existing material within the article and providing cites hardly qualifies a hitpiece.

Now, if you'll recall, I'd stated I was looking for cites before Ryulong brought it back. At this point, I'd decided to levvy what i had, to make a point that it was a slightly more widespread criticism than the article initially suggested. http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=My_Little_Pony:_Friendship_Is_Magic&curid=175671&diff=1579061&oldid=1579060 Paravant undid this immediately. http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=My_Little_Pony:_Friendship_Is_Magic&curid=175671&diff=1579062&oldid=1579061 he corrected me in that he changed that, but he stated no reasons as to why the newer version of the article deserved the reversion, as the changes are practically inane.

If you're not seeing anything, let's face it, shitty, about Paravant's behaviour in this yet, you haven't been paying attention. This went on for a couple more edits, before Paravant reverted all of the changes, and modlocked the page.

It would seem to me, that the only person edit warring here, was Paravant. This behaviour is frankly, appalling, and there have been several instances of him targeting Ryulong like this before, in the past. The thing that infuriates me here, was that it was my edit he was reverting, but his focus was on Ryulong. Like he hadn't even looked to see who made the edit in the first place, or what Ryulong was doing, at least not before the first reversion.

It is pretty clear to me that this behaviour is quite outside the bounds of what one would consider acceptable from a moderator here at RationalWiki. This blatant abusal of the mod tools that is only here because of Paravant's grudge against Ryulong, and I don't think this is something that we should allow. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 07:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

As an addendum. I asked Paravant what his rationale for this was. He has been active on the site since I posted this. He has yet to respond. http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:My_Little_Pony:_Friendship_Is_Magic&diff=1579107&oldid=1579106 07:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The more you insist that this is because I do not like Ryulong, the less true it becomes. Furthermore, I dislike Ryulong because almost his entire time here on this wiki has been filled with Drama f his own causing, whether it be GG, MLP, or any other show. My opposition to his version is summed by Tielec comments. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 07:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I love the smell of victim blaming in the morning. It smells like napalm.—Ryulong (talk) 07:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
You have once again refused to actually address the substance of the claims or defend your actions. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 07:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm surprised how you can smell it given how much you reek of playing the victim. You're an unapologetic ass who cannot fathom the concept that people disagree with you for any reason besides a personal grudge, you apparently cannot step away from wiki editing, by your own admission, because somebody said something you didn't like "and just had to argue with them", you've attempted, and through david, succeeded in owning articles on this wiki. There's little to like about you. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 07:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
My crime was editing Wikipedia in a way that Gamergaters didn't like and there was no level of changing my screennames or whatever you have it that would have made me joining here any different. But sure. I'm at fault for being despised by reactionary shitheels.—Ryulong (talk) 07:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
You feed your watchers and chasers Ryulong. You're the perfect target exactly because of things like "I wanted to LANCB but somebody said something I didn't like so that was over in less than a day" There's a reason you have an entire thread on you, and it isn't solely because you are anti-GG --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 07:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
The reason there's a thread is because the only thing that separates you from them is a political ideology.—Ryulong (talk) 07:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Try again, but make sense this time.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 07:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
You are an asshole as is anyone else mocking me. The only difference betwen you and Gamergaters is that you don't quip that it's actually about ethics in video game journalism.—Ryulong (talk) 07:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
See, its comments like that. This "I have done nothing wrong how can people not like me" attitude. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 07:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Expressing a negative opinion of an online mob shouldn't result in all the shit that's happened. Much like trying to eliminate the useless brony puffery shouldn't have resulted in a fucking multiple month edit war perpetuated by the both of us.—Ryulong (talk) 08:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
No, expressing a negative opinion on GG shouldn't have, but your personality meant nothing else ever would have come of it. You're far to combative for your own good. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 08:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
RW was way more pleasant before Ryulong. First AgingHippie, now Paravant, good dudes dragged into needless drama. Pretty clear at some point RW will have to swing the ban hammer, the question is how much stress and how many decent editors will piss off before you do. At least you got a good Gamergate article :/ Sarah (HH) 13:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
That's so hypocritical of you considering you yourself came here only to bitch about Ryulong, as your "parody" userpage is proof of it. Typhoon (talk) 14:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I came here to edit the Gamergate article. Once it became clear that wouldn't be possible without causing drama *cough* *cough* I stopped. That's the opposite of hypocritical - I'm practicing exactly what I'm preachin' Sarah (HH) 15:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Also, Paravant, I made this clear in the coop case which you have clearly not read: It was MY edit, not Ryulong's. Your grudge is showing. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 07:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
From an editorial standpoint, Kitsunelaine's additions do seem reasonable. I know this is going to fall on deaf ears, but is there any hope of talking this one out on the talkpage? A little compromise in this situation will go a long way. Gooniepunk (talk) 07:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
There is a discussion on the talk page. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 07:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
So, let's follow this proposal: keep the discussion there. Keep the discussion civil, both sides be willing to compromise, nobody lock the page just because others disagree, and then we all move on and be happy. No Coop case, no drama, no problem. Can all three of you agree to these terms, under penalty of intervention by myself (who has zero stake in goddamn MLP anything)? Gooniepunk (talk) 07:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Don't Balance fallacy this, Gooniepunk. Paravant is the one here with a grudge, not us. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 07:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Balance fallacy? Did you not see me stand up for your revisions? No, this is me trying to moderate an argument that most of the rest of the Wiki doesn't want to be involved with. So, we can either discuss and resolve this like goddamn adults on the talkpage of MLP, or I can go heavy-handed aand actually use my moderator powers over something that could've been resolved through simple logicaldiscussion instead of power games and bitchy fits. Gooniepunk (talk) 08:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Sticking up for all sides is a part of the balance fallacy, yes. I'd be hashing it out with Tielec on the talk page if I wasn't preoccupied with this, and I'd be able to do that right now in a rightful sense if Paravant hadn't gone off on the page. The fact of the matter is, if Paravant had done nothing, there would be no drama, only disagreements and discussions. And since Paravant has behaved in such a manner to Ryulong before, over many different pages, it's an ongoing problem that NEEDS to be discussed. It's not just about My Little Pony. This is, perhaps, something I hadn't done a good enough job in explaining on the initial coop post, here. But it can't keep going on like this. I'm willling to bet it's draining for both Paravant AND Ryulong, and I would much like the hostilities to cease. But that can't happen if Paravant keeps pretending they dont' exist. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 08:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
That argument would work better if you hadn't in the past tried to turn the entire article into a hit piece. I'm fine with not having it locked, but not if they plan to fight over a wording that people disagree with.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 07:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
You were the only one fighting, Paravant. All Ryu did was provide cites that someone asked for (hardly seems like a fight to me) and you took a massive issue with that. You turned it into a fight with your grudge. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 07:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
You trying to put your foot down and throw your weight around while abusing your mod tools to prevent things you don't like from being said is not a discussion, Paravant. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 07:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
And as the talk page showed, what you wrote did not have bearings with the sources. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 08:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
You maliciously undid and modlocked the page before that was even discussed. This is about your behaviour, Paravant. Not the page. Make no mistake. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 08:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Personally I found Tiels issues with your wording to be persuasive. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 07:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I fancy a solution[edit]

A Moratorium on discussion between me and Ryulong for 2 weeks or so. Agreed? Let tensions calm down between me and Ryu. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 08:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

A sort of internet restraining order? If the moratorium prevented you from making mod actions on anything Ryu does and leaving it to other moderators, I would think that would be a fine decision, and for the first time in a while, I would agree with a call you've made. Otherwise it only benefits one party. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 08:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
It would include mod action, yes. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 08:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Then I think that's a reasonable action the two of you should take. Also, I think I accidentally undid one of your earlier posts on here by hitting save at the same time, you might want to put that back in. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 08:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
This is exactly what I was going to propose, so +1. There are other (active) moderators now, so no need for Paravant to do all the work. I would recommend extending it to at least a month though. Carpetsmoker (talk) 13:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Other issues[edit]

Basically a track record of being a jackass and throwing his weight around for no reason at all. Acei9 08:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

You should go talk to mona about that barring an editor one. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 08:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
We're talking about you - you want to open another coop for Mona you go right ahead. Acei9 08:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
No, just making a statement about something you might be interested in given your comments. For this, you're right, I've been an ass, i've been in a shit mood for weeks and have no idea why. But i'm going to lay some of the blame on Israel-palestine and the 3 month shitfest that was that I largely had to try and resolve ad hoc, it's wrecked me and I think what I need to do is step away from RW for a few weeks, get the fight out of me. So lets shutter this for that period and if we return with me still being the same, go ahead and remove my mod tools. Is this agreeable?--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 08:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Hey man, you do whatever you need to do. But from one former jackass to a current jackass - pull your shit together. Acei9 08:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm not Ace, but I can say that you should go ahead and take all the time you need. Being in that state of mind is never good. For what it's worth, I don't have anything against you on a personal level. I'd be a massive hypocrite if I held a grudge for someone who acted out in a bad mood over a grudge. Ryu's a friend, and I'd just had enough of seeing these fights. I do want to assure you that I am here of my own accord, though, and have my own interests in editing at RW, because there are a lot of things I care about-- I'm not really a tag team partner, as some would have you think, even if we do ideologically line up. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 08:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Do whatever you need to do Paravant. You have been the only active moderator here for a long time and performed admirably in the face of truly shitty behaviour by a number of editors. We now have other active moderators so let them shoulder at least some of this crap. Take that break for sure if you feel it is what you need.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 15:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I. for one, was happy to see the I/P kerfuffle damped down a bit, with the two prime instigators given a week or two off. As Paravant mentioned somewhere, peace came back to the wiki, if only briefly. Kudos to em for persevering solo in a scarcity of other active moderators. (ISTR Goonie might have chipped in a bit, so props to him too.) Omelette, egg shells, yada, yada. Alec Sanderson (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear mob, does this constitute revertable trolling of a talk page?[edit]

THIS IS NOT A COOP CASE. I WON'T BE PARTICIPATING IN IT. ADDING: What I have to say I said at SW's talk page.---Mona- (talk) 17:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I think this is a question of definition and principle, but Mona and I obviously disagree, so I thought I'd flag it to the mob.

Mona deemed SissyMendelstein's JAQing off trolling and thus reverted it from her talk page, I disagreed and undid the deletion, adding my own criticism of SM in the process and suggesting collapsing or archiving the section instead, whereupon Mona deleted everything, repeating her claim of revertable trolling. Seeing a looming edit war, I thought it more useful to get the mob's opinion on whether Mona is correct in her definition of this case as trolling. To make it easy to keep track of opinions, I've decided to add a sort AfD'esque voting option. ScepticWombat (talk) 17:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Trolling (it stays deleted), because...[edit]

  1. Overt anti-semitism (it's not really covert anymore, if it ever was) is definitely offensive trolling, even if they actually believe what they say. Also, I think SMs "contributions" has passed well into being spam by now. Repetitious and long-winded in the extreme. Dendlai (talk) 17:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Not trolling (revert deletion, but collapsing or archiving are okay), because...[edit]

  1. I don't think SM's JAQing off qualifies as the kind of trolling that can simply be reverted because, although SM's badly veiled anti-Semitic haranguing is getting rather tiresome, SM hasn't engaged in the kind of offensive trolling that the revert option was originally created to limit (e.g. mikemikev's rants, overly abusive comments, spam and so forth). ScepticWombat (talk) 17:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. This sounds like something already fought in the archives. I read the offending comments, and I've had the same type of question demanded of me by Mona (and several others) which I cannot delete even if I cared to. That's the rules printed for longer then I have been here, and if you want the rule of law instead of the rule of people (as Mona stated her desires to be today) then you need to follow them as well. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 17:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


Reminding editors about the rules[edit]

I move that the rationalwiki community reminds -Mona- and Carpetsmoker ‎that they are never to remove the comments of other users on discussion pages, and not to use blocking as a tool to do anything but prevent vandalism/for humor. They are especially reminded that they are not to remove other users sysop bits without an emergent risk.

Removing other users comments:

Abuse of tools to block people outside of vandalism:

Removing sysopbits outside of emergent risk:

For (reminder)[edit]

  1. Hipocrite (talk) 13:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Against (reminder)[edit]

  1. Well, how did you think I was going to vote ;-) Here are the first four comments by Hipocrite in full: "boo hoo, the gators are mad that they can't run Ryulong off on a rail. Go fuck yourselves, really.", "Go fuck yourself, Mona, really. Is there a timeframe to your upcoming flounce off? PS: You're misrepresenting me because you're too stupid to understand what I wrote - get on my level.", "Ban on sight for anyone who shows up here just to piss of Ryulong and all Gators. Same effect, and we'll lose only such leading lights as Aneris.", "No, you halfwit, your senses have taken leave of you again. Apologize, now. (Here's not-me calling you a cunt, you stupid piece of garbage"... It goes on for a bit more. Calling people cunts has no place in any reasonable and civil discourse. Apparently putting a stop to this is considered an offence now? This is a sort of abuse beyond anything I've seen on RW so far; and I'm not going to just "let it be". There are limits. Carpetsmoker (talk) 14:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
    I never called anyone a cunt. Hipocrite (talk) 14:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
    Oh, you put a link there to someone else calling Mona a cunt. Really, it makes very little difference. I hope Mona doesn't mind me saying so with brutal honesty: but yeah. sure, Mona can be combative and go into overdrive and be something of a pain to deal with (I've experienced this first-hand). But never, ever, ever, ever will I even consider calling her a cunt, garbage, or anything even close to that. Should I, in a fit of anger, do it anyway (not completely impossible), then I would be deeply ashamed, disappointed in myself, and quite literally beg for an apology. The same, by the way, applies to you, Ryulong, Kitseluaine, or anyone else.
    You now try to weasel your way out of calling Mona a cunt (and never mind calling her "garbage" and all the other comments). Had you apologized, said "sorry, I went into overdrive", I would have apologized like-wise for th ban, we would have had the proverbial beer together and could continue as friends. But no, you stick to your guns, defend your insults, and bring me to the coop over it. This, more than anything else, shows that we have a problem in this community by being to tolerating to behaviour that amounts to nothing more than simple abuse. Carpetsmoker (talk) 15:04, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
    She accused me of calling her a cunt. I never did so, and never would do so. I pointed out the person that she had confused me with. You are doubling down on me calling her a cunt. This is why we're never going to have a beer. That, and your unwillingness to abide by the decision of the mob. Hipocrite (talk) 15:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


  1. FFS, this is obviously not a Coop case. Drop them a note, maybe. And definitely stop this infantile grandstanding.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 14:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
    I was told to open a coop case by a moderator above. Carpetsmoker has said he would do such actions again here. Neither of them is listening to me. Perhaps they'll listen to you - why don't you go tell them to stop? Hipocrite (talk) 14:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
    "either of them is listening to me" -> That's because you're not worth listening to; all you can do is ad hominem and to quoque. Carpetsmoker (talk) 14:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
    He writes, unironically. Hipocrite (talk) 14:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
    Will the tu quoque ever stop? Yes, I do write it unironically, as I don't go around discussions making comments such as "Is that just a dick move?" or more to that effect. You may disagree with me or think my comments are a waste of space, but at least they're more substantive than just insults. Carpetsmoker (talk) 14:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
    No, the part that you ironically wrote unironically is that I'm not worth listening to because "all [I] can do is ad hominem and to quoque." Hipocrite (talk) 14:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
    "For every coop case there shall be an equal and opposite coop case" Carpetsmoker (talk) 14:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Discussion (reminder)[edit]

I will indefinitely put up with anyone who disagrees with me on any topic. I will not indefinitely put up with people who call me a dick or whatnot (note I did NOT block or removed anyone else's comments, including Typhoon's or Kitsulaine's; never even considered it).
If the best comment you can make is "hey, you're just a dick" and "we should ban YOU instead" (paraphrased) then you've sort of lost the right to comment in my opinion. Everyone can have a bad day, and you can do it once or twice, but if that's all you can say you can shut up.
I know this is not "the RW way", but "the RW way" is putting up with extreme assholes and having them derail everything. So fuck it. I put my foot down, and I'll do it again tomorrow. Carpetsmoker (talk) 14:04, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
If the mob tells you to not do this, are you going to listen to it, or are you going to insist that your way is the right way? Hipocrite (talk) 14:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Again, you reply with a non-reply. Instead of saying "you were wrong because ..." you reply with Argumentum ad populum. Carpetsmoker (talk) 14:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
No, I'm not arguing with you, but I'll happily do that instead, I'm asking if you intend to follow the diktat of the mob or if your intention is to ignore it. If the mob says "what he did was fine," I intend to follow that diktat. What is your intention? Hipocrite (talk) 14:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
My intention is not to put up with indefinite insults. Goat help me, a very extremist and emotional position, I know. Unfortunately, I'm only human and wish to be treated as such, and not as a doormat. Carpetsmoker (talk) 14:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
If the coop tells you to not block people you are in a disagreement with and to not remove tools from people absent an emergent threat to the wiki, do you intend to follow that directive or ignore it? It's not a hard question - I don't know why you won't answer it. Hipocrite (talk) 14:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Flagrant straw man. I very clearly said that "I will indefinitely put up with anyone who disagrees with me on any topic" just as few comment ago. I sure as hell didn't do what I did because I disagree with you. Carpetsmoker (talk) 14:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Your motive isn't what's at issue. The issue is that you did the thing while in a disagreement with me. You don't block other users who are not vandalizing. You don't remove tools from people so you can block them and make them stick. You especially don't do this when you are in a dispute with those other people. If the coop tells you that what you did was wrong, and that you are not to do it again, will you stop doing it, or are you sticking by your statement that you intend to block people who are not vandalizing, not a threat to the functioning of the wiki because they are extreme assholes who you believe are derailing everything? Yes or no works. Hipocrite (talk) 14:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── "don't block other users who are not vandalizing" -> This is where we can have a semantic game on what "vandalizing" exactly means. One dictionary puts as "destroy or deface", and by adding comments that only say "is that just a dick move" one could say you're destroying or defacing the conversation. I only removed one comment and that sure as hell didn't add anything to what was a reasonable conversation between 142 and me. You had previously made other similar comments:

These are the first few "contributions"; NOT cherry picked. At some point I had enough of this. A block seemed like the obvious thing, but as I stated on my talk page to AH, I'm open to other solutions. "Sucking it up" is NOT a solution, though. And yes, I'll stick by that. You don't go around calling people cunts and then turn around say you were "just disagreeing". Carpetsmoker (talk) 14:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I never called anyone a cunt. Please retract and apologize. Hipocrite (talk) 14:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Comedy gold. 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 14:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Mmmmmh, the "here's not me calling you a cunt" one comes close enough to calling someone a cunt so that there's not much difference. SolPyre (talk) 14:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Fuck that. She said "Aren't you the one who called me a cunt?" and I pointed her to not-me calling her a cunt. Hipocrite (talk) 14:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
This is great. 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 14:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I just ran to the fridge and got an ice cream.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 14:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
+1 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 14:58, 8 December 2015 (UTC)