RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive41

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Incidents in the last 6 weeks[edit]

Yes, again. Incidents involving Ryulong over the last ~6 weeks (since 22 October):

  • 22 Oct Created a useless redirect of Gay Agenda to Gay agenda; proceeded to edit-war and be a twat over it.
  • 23 Oct The My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic drama; need I say more?
  • 24 Oct As part of the MLP drame Ryulong sees it fit to remove a vote from the AfD (here here), then proceeds to undo some unrelated changes from the same user out of spite ([1] [2]).
  • 3 Nov Edit war on 4chan
  • 4 Nov Throws a fit and edit wars over a "fair use" image which very clearly isn't (File talk:R Dawkins - 500 hours in MS Paint.jpg)
  • 5 Nov Edit wars and fights over Doxing (see history and Talk:Doxing).
  • 5 Nov Calls the RW community "toxic" after a single joke about him (has this on his userpage for almost a month); also see File:RW Community.png
  • 10 Nov Throws a fit and edit wars over a dispute of copyrighted images (here and here).
  • 20 Nov Following (yet another) edit war Ryulong is discovered to abuse revdel powers (here, here, here)
  • 1 Dec More My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic drama; it's put up for AfD again, where Ryulong's behaviour is not exactly out-of-line, but I do find it ... disturbing. Also proceeds to remove votes again and edit-wars over it when people object. Throws fit over in Saloon and some other talk pages.
  • 2 Dec Proceeds to throw a fit on Anita Sarkeesian over {{fact}} taggings (see history and here). Only resolved quickly because Queex steps in (this is part of a cleanup on unsourced BLP pages 20+ pages done, only one gives me trouble...).
  • 5 Dec Edit wars on Yonaguni Monument over the inclusion of {{ufology}} (while I am hardly enamoured by Reverend Black Percy's behaviour later on, it's Ryulong who started being a dick over this).
  • 6 Dec Tells reasonably BoN on Talk:Baptist to "fuck off and shut up because this is a site for atheists" (paraphrased).

Not all of this is equally serious, and there are some other things I could of included in this list, but didn't because it wasn't strictly Ryulong's fault; still, almost all of those situations were non-situations if anyone else but Ryulong would be involved (such as the "DlagonDlagon coop case").

The pattern[edit]

And this is just the last 6 weeks. Similar behaviour started almost since the moment he first arrived on this site. My point is to show an ongoing pattern with no signs of slowing down:

  • Unable to discuss issues in a calm and rational manner.
  • Difficult to compromise with.
  • Excessive use of profanity. I don't want to "tone police" anyone, but it shows a lack of respect and tends to move discussions "the wrong way", and is getting out of hand. There is a limit as to what we have to accept as a community, IMHO.
  • Being patient and reasonable does not help.
  • Bringing the topic up a day later (so everyone has time to "cool down") does not help.

All of this results in real damage:

  • Waste of time of editors which could be spent on improving pages and other (constructive) pursuits.
  • A hostile and nasty environment where editors are more likely to "give up" than constantly battle Ryulong. This will result in pages which are of a lower quality.
  • Editors will think twice before editing a Ryulong Blessed Page™ as they know it's likely to lead to drama.
  • Damage to RationalWiki's reputation as a sceptic and science website.
  • Editors leaving the site.

"Assholes Are Killing Your Project" (OpenOffice slides) is an interesting analysis on how "useful assholes" can be devastating to a collaborative project (coding or wiki makes little difference here). Here's the full talk.

In other words, Ryulong is a damaging and counter-productive influence on this site.

Pattern from Wikipedia continued[edit]

We don't punish people for off-site actions (which is good), but ignoring a general pattern would also be foolish. His behaviour on Wikipedia over a span of about eight years has been consistently considered problematic, and was eventually banned in early 2015. He's been on RW for almost a year, and has continued his problematic Wikipedia behaviour with (and this is the important bit) no signs of change, regret, or other signs of even wanting to improve. His behaviour on Wikipedia has also continued through various proxies (proof: [3], [4]) and probably sockpuppets (no proof, but would be surprised if this wasn't the case). There's actually a List of Ryulong's Abuses which looks very similar to the list I compiled.

The same pattern emerged on other sites, such as here.

RW has a long and proud history of putting up with problematic editors. This is rooted in CP's fanatical use of the banahmmer. I think this is commendable, but at some point, we have to say enough is enough, something has got to change.

No signs of slowing down or improvement[edit]

Where other people (such as Paravant and Reverend Black Percy recently) will take some time to reflect, apologize, and "step away" for a few weeks I've never seen Ryulong do so. I've never seen him clearly show regret for anything, and any attempt to "step away" usually lasted no more than a few hours at most.

Now, in the copyvio conflict Ryulong said:

I'm just so burned out of these things and I obviously burn too many bridges in the process so maybe you're right. I'm an asshole. I alienate people without even trying. I'm a horrible human being and I shouldn't bother contributing to this website or any other anymore.—Ryulong (talk) 00:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I honestly don't know what to do anymore. I obviously can't fix my behavior despite all of the apparent attempts everyone's made to try to direct me into the "right" direction. It didn't help after 9 years on Wikipedia and it's not going to help after a year on RationalWiki.—Ryulong (talk) 01:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

But since then nothing changed and old patterns resumed (which is a shame, as I hoped something would change after this).

How can we fix it?[edit]

So what are we doing to do about this? Do we really want to let this go on any longer? Or do we want to wait until the next time everyone's time is wasted on the next outbreak of drama? Because all the signs are there that this will happen.


  • The obvious is a ban or vandal bin for some time or perhaps even indefinitely.
  • Reach an agreement with Ryulong on what constitutes acceptable behaviour, with clear and direct punishment if he breaches this agreement (such as a 3-hour ban, or something else).
  • Other creative options?

Ryulong (and probably Kitsunelaine) will surly reply to this with "you're just picking on Ryulong". There are very few other editors of which you can compile a 13-point list of problematic behaviour over a span of 6 weeks. The only other recent one is AvengeroftheBoN, and guess what, he was banned for a few weeks.

Sorry for the long story people, I did my best to be reasonable and fair with Ryulong in the last few weeks, in some cases defending Ryulong (such as in No platform a few weeks ago), but I've had enough. His behaviour on Baptist was, a we say in Dutch, "the droplet that overflowed the bucket". Somehow, something needs to change here. Carpetsmoker (talk) 11:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I would like to think that a decent start might be fellow editors attempting to engage with him in good faith as opposed to ways that only further aggression (which isn't necessarily bad faith, as it can also be attributed to simple carelessness). Why this wasn't mentioned in "how do we fix it" is beyond me. You don't calm a frustrated bear down by repeatedly jabbing it with a stick, and then acting surprised when it lashes out. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 11:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
This would be a good argument if Ryulong wouldn't have spent the last 10 months on this site being a twat, which he has. People are fed up, and have run out of patience with Ryulong, which is not at all unreasonable. Your argument basically boils down to "just accept that Ryulong is a twat and deal with it". No. I'm willing to put up with a certain amount, but enough is enough. It's Ryulong's responsibility to fix this, not mine to "just accept it". Carpetsmoker (talk) 11:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
"He's a twat" isn't a good reason to give someone an excuse to be a twat. That only, again, furthers the aggression. Also, I am not telling you to "just accept it". I am saying the world is big enough for the both of you, and it's not just one side that has to put the effort in to make it that way. A lot of this is the capacity to engage with someone in good faith as opposed to berating them. You have to be willing to set aside your differences and hash it out. Civilly. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 11:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
In most of the 13 incidents no one gave "Ryulong an excuse to be a twat". Your reply somehow assumes that I have not spent significant effort in engaging with Ryulong in a reasonable manner. I have. I certainly never picked any fights with Ryulong. Your Ryulong apologetics are beyond ludicrous and laughable, just as they are on the Baptist page. Carpetsmoker (talk) 11:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
A good number of those incidents seemed to have involved you.—Ryulong (talk) 11:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Only three: the gay agenda thing, copyvio stuff (part of a general cleanup), and the fact taggings on Anita (also part of a general cleanup). The rest I was only involved after you were problematic (like the Baptist BoN thing). Carpetsmoker (talk) 11:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
If you have attempted to engage in a reasonable manner with Ryulong, I personally have not seen it. In fact, if your most recent example on said Baptist page of smug condescension is your definition of "reasonable manner", then I would wholeheartedly disagree with your assertions. I would like to add, that it is not just you that I am talking about, and it is rather arrogant to assume such dominance over a topic. There are several others on this site that should listen to what I am saying here, as they are only furthering an issue as opposed to resolving it. Indeed, putting up times where people have sought to engage with Ryu in a reasoned manner would amplify your point, but the only substance of your coop case is "God, look at what a dick Ryulong is, we should ban him". There is no attempt at sympathy or empathy, and I rarely see any put forward towards Ryulong. Merely trying to attempt reasoned debate with him on it's own doesn't count as a show of good faith. As a third party observer, I've seen nothing here to suggest anything being put forward towards Ryulong in an attempt to show people trying to put a distance between themselves and the toxicity here that Ryulong is observing. All I've seen are things that would reinforce his attitude towards the site picking on him. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 11:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
"the only substance of your coop case is "God, look at what a dick Ryulong is, we should ban him"." -> Flagrant straw man. I posted a list of real damage he does to this site. I also posted at least one other option than banning and said that, as far as I'm concerned, other options are open (I just can't think of any). "As a third party observer" -> mwuahahah. This is the same "third party observer" that posts "rofl! @Ryulong and me made some bronies angry at @RationalWiki" (or something to that effect) and was friends with Ryulong long before you joined this site last month? Carpetsmoker (talk) 11:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I am a third party observer. And while I am friends with Ryulong, that doesn't quite color what I've seen here. Indeed, everything I'm saying in this topic is based purely on personal experience in my tenure on this site, as opposed to anything colored by a friendship. And no, I did not actually know Ryulong before I joined this site, as you might expect. I found this place through it's Gamergate article, and I grew a respect for Ryulong's no nonsense attitude towards the disingenuous claims of Gamergaters. Indeed, if this were all based on my own emotions, I would not even be able to discuss it with you, as I am rather notorious for getting personal when faced with issues like this. But, I have shelved that, at least temporarily. My only interest here-- only-- is to try and resolve the hostilities, of which I personally try to partake in little, myself (I hold no grudges on this site. Except maybe towards Mona. And when I do intervene, it's usually because I feel like I have a point, and not necessary to back up Ryulong (Our views just happen to align on some topics)). And while I appreciate the hyperbole of the twitter post, what I said on twitter was more dismay over the fact that what amounted to criticism of bronies without punches being pulled was being contested so heavily on a site that had no problem with not pulling it's punches on any other section. It was not a joyous, trollfull moment as you might have interpreted it. Indeed, it was a rather depressing moment for me, because I thought that this site was better than that.
That being said, my friendship with Ryulong is not completely without it's benefit, as you might suggest. I acted as a mediator between the frustration Ryu and Paravant were feeling, and I was able to successfully bring a case that stopped those hostilities in their tracks (And I sincerely hope that Paravant is doing well on his break, and that the two are able to get along once he returns.) This means that I personally have done more to stop this drama in such a way as to try and resolve personal grudges than you ever have. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 12:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
I would also like to note that I was only present for the MLP debacle and defending Ryulong because I felt personal guilt towards the whole situation, as it was I who had pointed out to Ryulong the fact that the page was nothing but propaganda, but hesitated with anxieties over how I would word it without pissing off the herd. As Ryulong was a touch more brazen than I, he started, and then everything collapsed. I felt a responsibility to try and clean up the mess I'd inadvertently caused, because you all were being completely unreasonable with the criticism that was being added. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 12:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Kitsunelaine, you're the most reasonable person in this mess of a coop. It's saddening that everything you said will be ignored by the people in here who have a grudge against Ryulong. Typhoon (talk) 12:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Ah yes, the "grudge against Ryulong"-myth comes out. This is nonsense. I'm fed up with someone who is consistently a twat and disruptive. This is not "having a grudge". Carpetsmoker (talk) 12:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Ryu has tried to engage with you in this very case and you've, ah, how did you put it? "consistently been a twat" towards him. I don't think you should throw stones in glass houses, Carpetsmoker. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 12:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
As an aside, it is pretty clear to me, Carpetsmoker, that your personally favored option is the ban, seeing as it came first and you declared it the "obvious" solution. It is ludicrous to pretend that you are interested in anything else as the thought of other things barely crossed your mind. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 12:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
I put it first because it is the obvious thing to do as this is the only tool we really have, as such (other than Vandal bin). For what it's worth, I doubted for a while whether to include it at all as I didn't want to give the impression that I wanted to "just ban him and be done with it". The first part of the problem is that Ryulong doesn't seem to recognize that there is a problem, in the first place. If he would, I could work with him; but so far, I've felt that all my advice is simply ignored. And yes, I *have* given Ryulong constrictive advice on how to deal with situations better on more than a few occasions... So, should Ryulong come here and say "Damn, my behaviour *IS* a problem, how can we do better?" I am more than willing to help out. Carpetsmoker (talk) 12:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
You doubted it so much you put an entire extra paragraph in to emphasise how we should totally ban Ryulong because some other guy got banned some other time. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 12:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
I think a week-long ban or such might not be a bad idea, just to give a clear message "this is not how we treat people here", just as was done to Avenger. I have no illusions that this will fix anything in the long term, though, so a more constructive/creative solution is also required. I am not quite sure what that is, though. I hope someone else has a good idea. Carpetsmoker (talk) 13:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
I think you should first examine your own behavior before you tell others to examine theirs. You have acted incredibly unreasonable in this coop, and seem only interested in trying to convince people you are right as opposed to actually discussing with Ryulong, who has seemed quite open to talking about your claims. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 13:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
So far the only thing Ryulong has posted is "I was always right in all those cases". As I pointed out several times, I am more than willing to work with Ryulong, but he has to admit there is a problem first. Which, so far, he hasn't done. How can you fix a problem if one party doesn't admit there's a problem? As mentioned before, I've tried more than once to be constructive, and it was all ignored. You can toss around words like "unreasonable" all you want, but that doesn't change anything. Carpetsmoker (talk) 13:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
If you are unwilling to concede any points to Ryulong, you are not engaging in good faith. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 13:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
You're doing a ridiculous straw man again. I never claimed that I'm "unwilling to concede any points". As stated before, I don't have any interest in squabbling over the details of the list. Maybe I misjudged one case, perhaps even two or three. Still leaves us with ten points, which are about eight or nine too many. My point is that there is a general pattern which goes back at least ten years and that this pattern shows no sign of slowing down. Carpetsmoker (talk) 13:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
You did not claim that you are unwilling to concede any points, but that fact is increasingly evident. If you admit that some the cases are bullshit, and you might just have with your refusal to "squabble over the details of the list", what on earth is the harm of making a good faith gesture in accepting that? - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 13:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
That's some truly good word-twisting you did there. I didn't "admit that some the cases are bullshit", I said that it's possible that I misjudged some (which is not the same as "bullshit"), just as I will freely admit that it's possible that I'm wrong about anything. At any rate, I tire of this "discussion", as all you do is twist my words and try to put words in my mouth. I'm going off and do something constructive now. I'm sure this will be twisted and turned in some way as me not being constructive or whatever. Carpetsmoker (talk) 13:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Carpetsmoker, trying to run away from a discussion you started is not a good indicator of the strength of your argument. Likewise, "Bullshit" does not have a strict usage, and can easily be applied to something you "misjudged" (Why is it so hard for you to say "I was wrong"? Why do you have to have so many caveats to say "but I might be right, so there"?). If you are willing to admit where you are wrong, I have not seen evidence of it. I have only seen you sidestep, and when you falter, you go "But that's not the point". The problem is, Carpetsmoker, if this is your "discussion" tactic, it's clear to me that you are not interested in having any sort of discussion where the facts disagree with your assertions. This behavior is unbecoming of a fellow skeptic, and I would suggest a quick distancing from it, especially when your argument is based on those assertions. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 14:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Point in case. Not "running away from the discussion", simply tired of your dishonest discussion practices (straw man, red herring, ad hominem, etc.) Carpetsmoker (talk) 14:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Carpetsmoker, you have to explain why what I've said are any of those things. Simply stating it does not make a case for you. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 14:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
as the thought of other things barely crossed your mind.- Kitsunelaine Are you the product of Professor X' one-night stand with a kitsune??--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 12:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Nah, I just have the ability to read between the lines. And, y'know. The ability to read. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 12:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
More like to distort, tell bare-faced lies and being the minion of the silly serpent.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 12:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Did you even read CS's coop case? I suggest you scroll up, man. He put a lot of emphasis on banning. EDIT: Carpetsmoker, after this post was made has decided to edit his original post to say "Temporary ban." I respect his reluctant ability to change things, but I wish he would acknowledge that it was brought up here first, otherwise it makes me look kind of silly. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 12:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Holy shit, that's some hilarious venom and anger from you, Arisboch. But it's Ryulong who's the mean one in here, right? Typhoon (talk) 13:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Venom and anger? You mistake me for the dlagon.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 13:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Nah he's pretty on the mark, dude. Sorry to break it to you. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 13:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Damn, I wanna have mindless minions like dlagon, too!! How can I be a credible wiki-villain without them??--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 13:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
It's been pointed out before that the people going on and on about 'the evil SJWs' are themselves engaging in the behaviour they decry. Similar irony is happening in here, as people accuse Ryulong of being "mean and unreasonable" while behaving the same way. For example, your outburst at Kitsunelaine. And then you followed it by calling Ryulong 'dlagon', how petty. You completely lose your mind whenever you think about Ryulong. Typhoon (talk) 13:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
"Completely loose my mind"? How? Do I even do a fraction of the ranting dragon does on his pet issue talk pages (and maybe also on coop case pages, but I don't remember and can't be assed to go through the archives of the chicken coop)? Do I start revdeling, banning, blanking talk pages and deleting pages? You call my posts here venom and anger? You must be very new here, or, for that matter, very new on the net.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 13:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Well you can start by trying to create a twitter account to harass us OH WAIT - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 13:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Harass? I don't think, that my posts constituted harassment and you shouldn't be too thin-skinned before going out and pissing and moaning about the RW on Twitter.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 13:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Both victim blaming AND trying to change the definition of harassment. I got bingo. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 13:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Cheating at bingo? Naughty fox, very naughty fox indeed.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 13:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Bro, I'm just a pro. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 13:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I believe you being a professional liar.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 13:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, as we say to the religious all the time, the fact that you believe it does not make it so. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 13:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Seeing the dragon and his minions fox and storm, it's not necessary to believe in any kinda higher power to be a zealot.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 13:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
"It's your fault that I'm abusive towards you" - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 13:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Again strawmanning and false accusations. A worthy minion of dlagon indeed.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 13:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
"You're lying about my abuse towards you" - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 13:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
And yet more lies and strawmanning. --Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 13:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
"Why are you telling others about my abuse towards you? That is a lie." - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 13:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, your claims of harassment of me towards you are a lie and you won't get any more popular by whining about RW on Twitter. Or here, for that matter.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 13:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
"You're just acting out because you want the attention." - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 14:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Where the devil did I said that?? Sources or GTFO.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 14:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
"You're wrong. I never said those horrid things. It's your memory. You want to hate me." - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 14:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
That's still not a source for me having said anything you claim I said, you lying sack of shit.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 14:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
"I repeat. I DID NOT say any of those things to you! Why do you hate me so much, you dirty female?" - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 14:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
And now accusations of misogyny? Siriusly? You proceeding to sink any lower or did you hit rock bottom already? Ah, whom I kidding, there's always a way.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 14:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
"You are scum. You are worthless and you are scum. I am NOT abusing you. Stop spreading those lies. You don't hate me. You can't hate me. I'm perfect. Why are you crying? Stop crying! I'm trying to talk to you. Listen when I'm speaking!" - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 14:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────WTF??? Were you huffing glue right now?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 14:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

"You're only saying these things because you're insane, honey. I love you. Honest." - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 14:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
You seem to have completely lost your mind, Arisboch. Typhoon (talk) 13:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Is now contradicting his holeyness Ryulong teh 1st and his cardinals Kitsune Wave (hooray for the Estonian language, oinas!!) and Typhoon enough to be declared mentally unfit?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 13:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Ryulong replies[edit]

Here's the thing with all of your issues: it takes two to tango.
  • You were an insufferable ass over the fact I created a single redirect due to cleaning up piped links.
  • All of the MLP "drama" shouldn't have happened but there's a reason why Paravant decided to take a break.
  • It's inane that one image that I uploaded was the source of any dispute when there are dozens of other files across this project that no one pays attention to.
  • The issue at doxing was that we have a Slymepitter who came in with a grudge against people to add a bunch of useless tu quoque entries to the page that aren't there anymore.
  • Oh no my screenshot of the Special:Log page. What the hell does it have to do with anything?
  • I'm no longer a sysop because of that revdel issue because I had thought there were actual libelous statements made. I'm sorry I erred on the side of caution when someone was alleging another person was a pedophile simply because a neoreactionary tabloid magazine wrote about it first.
  • The AFD wasn't clear but I realized the problem. And how is asking if there should be a policy on BoN AFD votes "throwing a fit"?
  • The Anita Sarkeesian stuff was completely unnecessary tagging of strawman hyperbole. I raised the issue as you can clearly see in all the discussions you linked, but no one bothered to engage me.
  • I attempted to debate the issue with Reverend Black Percy but he decided instead to rewrite the entire page with the Wikipedia version. He was in the wrong. Simply because I was the person arguing with him doesn't make me in the wrong on this as well.
  • And that BoN on Talk:Baptist was responsible for this massive rewrite just because the article categorizes Baptists as a Protestant church. There's no RW:AGF policy here so don't punish me for recognizing bad faith behavior when I see it.
Unless there's actual policies I've violated in the two weeks since I've been sysoprevoked then I don't see any purpose in this other than it being yet another venue for people to bitch about me as happens across the fucking project on a weekly basis.—Ryulong (talk) 11:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
"Sceptic" is the British spelling. My (British) girlfriend beats me if I don't use British spellings (really!) I have no interest in repeating discussions on any of these issues, I merely wanted to point out that you're a constant source of conflict, and seemingly lack any capacity at self-reflection or the ability to admit that, just maybe, you could have handled things a bit different. This reply is a great example of that (a large portion of your replies competently misses the point, btw)... "Actual policies I've violated" is not how we do thing here. This is not Wikipedia with 6MB of policies and wikilawyers. Rather, we typically try to "be reasonable and rational" and "do the sane thing" (and you know this). Carpetsmoker (talk) 11:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Well if in here we typically try to be "be reasonable and rational" and "do the sane thing" then you, Carpetsmoker, are right now behaving in a very atypical way. I mean really? Linking to lolcow.wiki? Might as well link to Encyclopedia Dramatica, that's another highly accurate website. Did you wrote this huge rant hoping to start another drama, just as things were getting quiet in here? It's funny that in many of the "Ryulong incidents" you pointed out you seemed to have also been involved. Hypocrite much? Typhoon (talk) 11:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Just a list I found somewhere. I never heard of this site. Doesn't change anything about the contents, though. As stated before, I was involved in three 'incidents', two of which were part of a larger cleanup with a number of changes to many pages (copyright-less images, BLP cleanup). I didn't start this to "cause drama", but because I am deeply ashamed to be a member of this community after Ryulong's ridiculous behaviour to the bon on baptism. It's exactly the sort of "internet atheist" behaviour that this site should NOT be associated with. Carpetsmoker (talk) 12:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Just a list I found somewhere. <- BWAHAHA. Why the secrecy? You afraid that you might appear to be associating with internet trolls, obsessive harassers and other scumbags? Sure. Let's say you just tripped over this list. Nothing suspicious about that. Typhoon (talk) 12:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Just Google, as I wanted some context on Ryulong. Contrary to your suggestion, I am not so deeply invested in all of the wikidrama and stuff that I know which site is "okay" and somehow "bad". I'm just a sceptic who likes to write about sceptic stuff. Carpetsmoker (talk) 12:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Well considering how the obsessive GG mob has been targeting Ryulong for many months now, getting unbiased google results on Ryulong is as impossible as getting them on Anita Sarkeesian. Also, LOL at you claiming that you aren't deeply invested in wiki drama after you write a wall of text in coop, with bolded sentences and hysteria about this site being destroyed. Typhoon (talk) 12:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I didn't go through the entire list to check its accuracy, at a glance, it seems to be in the right ballpark, though. The point is that Ryulong's behaviour on Wikipedia is notoriously abusive and resulted in a ban. This was the case well before GamerGate. Carpetsmoker (talk) 12:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Wasn't the ban solely for being involved in the GamerGate article and basically splash damage from a shit ArbCom decision - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 12:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, the lack of self awareness on this one is astounding. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 12:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Is it because I said "God isn't real" after about an hour of failing to get through to the BoN?—Ryulong (talk) 12:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
I detailed my objections above and on the talk page. You seem wilfully ignorant in your inability to even understand my objections. My objection is that you (from comment #1) told him to fuck off and shut because he's not an atheist. That is absolutely terrible behaviour. Carpetsmoker (talk) 12:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
The fact that we now have to deal with Carpetsmoker's pointless coop tantrum is only making me lose faith in God. Typhoon (talk) 12:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Not "pointless tantrum", but having my fill of abusive behaviour. Carpetsmoker (talk) 12:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Anyway, I still see that several of the conflicts you've cited are of people acting in bad faith (Baptist BoN, Aneris of Slymepit fame on Doxing, RBP's edits to Yonaguni Monument), which isn't reasonable or rational. It's just incredibly frustrating to edit these pages when I do attempt to engage in dialog, because I'm either ignored, berated, or given entirely vague and unactionable suggestions to move forward.—Ryulong (talk) 11:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
It's really bizarre how some people in here get worked up into a seething rage when they see Ryulong doing anything, and sometime even nothing at all. Like today when Carpetsmoker has to dig way back to October to make his "list of Ryulong's evil edits" appear longer. Typhoon (talk) 12:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
None of these were in bad faith. The bon was wrong, but that's not bad faith. RBP added sidebars to dozens of pages in the last few days. The doxing thing was reasonable and a number of other editors agrees with it. Carpetsmoker (talk) 12:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
I hope you do realize that Aneris has been trying to dox David Gerald for some time now. That user has been doing more damage to RW than what you believe Ryulong is doing. Typhoon (talk) 12:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
He did? Where? How?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 12:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Aneris is a Slymepit forum poster who has a grudge against PZ Myers, Rebecca Watson, and Stephanie Zvan.—Ryulong (talk) 12:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Point: completely missed. I am looking only at the edits, and NOT the person who made them. A few other people (AH, Goonie, Aleksandra96) stepped in to defend the edits (not the person). Carpetsmoker (talk) 12:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
The edits Aneris introduced aren't even on the page anymore and that's without my involvement. They were still done in bad faith. Why won't you acknowledge that?—Ryulong (talk) 12:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Because pointing it out would shift the focus from the real Hitler in here. Typhoon (talk) 12:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Aneris has been harassing people over the internet for years now. Since Carpetsmoker is so concerned about mean people destroying RW, I'm sure he'll create a coop section to deal with Aneris. Any moment now... Typhoon (talk) 12:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
CS, there's no point in speaking to Ryulong, as they have consistently demonstrated an inability to engage in dialogue. There's a simple solution, just block Ryulong for half an hour each time they piss you off. The behaviour Ryulong has demonstrated has alienated them from almost every sysop here, and I think that even Ryulong's defenders must look at the behaviour of this enfant terrible (of slechte kinder als jij dat liever) and wonder. No-one will get upset at you, with the possible exception of DG and the two defenders above; but I'm sure you can handle that. Tielec01 (talk) 12:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
I engage in dialog but no one engages back.—Ryulong (talk) 12:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
BLOCKED FOR 30 MINUTES Typhoon (talk) 12:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Note of possible conflict of interest: Ryulong was recently blocked and unblocked (by me) on a wiki I run. Citing the details would probably be dragging in off-wiki drama, but it's probably relevant to note that I am not unbiased here.
"As a third party observer, I've seen nothing here to suggest anything being put forward towards Ryulong in an attempt to show people trying to put a distance between themselves and the toxicity here that Ryulong is observing."
Here, here and here. Perhaps you've failed to see it because Ryulong so quickly dismisses it without comment, or accuses the person extending the olive branch of being part of the conspiracy.
"It's inane that one image that I uploaded was the source of any dispute when there are dozens of other files across this project that no one pays attention to."
This is bizarre as an attempted rebuttal, and you should be very aware from your time on wikipedia that this is universally derided as a bad faith objection.
"Aneris has been harassing people over the internet for years now. Since Carpetsmoker is so concerned about mean people destroying RW, I'm sure he'll create a coop section to deal with Aneris. Any moment now..."
Same. The main argument seems to be here "Ryulong has continuously done these unacceptable things (which we will not actually call unacceptable), but other people who are on thin ice have also done these unacceptable things (and now we will say these are unacceptable). Be consistent.
I don't think Ryulong (or Aneris, or whoever) needs to be blocked. I do think that Ryulong, for once, should both recognize that his behavior, whether it was justified or not, is having a detrimental effect on the wiki, and should set himself goals to correct that rather than just a quick session of self-flagellation that is quickly forgotten the next time someone irks him.KrytenKoro (talk) 15:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  • "And that BoN on Talk:Baptist was responsible for this massive rewrite just because the article categorizes Baptists as a Protestant church. There's no RW:AGF policy here so don't punish me for recognizing bad faith behavior when I see it."
    That's hardly a very accurate depiction of events. Sure the Baptist BoN made an edit that was rather silly and based on his/her personal theology, but what (s)he didn't do was to edit war over it, but instead (s)he did what any decent editor is supposed to do, i.e. explaining and making a case for their edit on the talk page where (s)he was met with the shut-the-fuck-up-and-get-lost-this-site-is-not-theists replies from Ryulong. As can be seen from the talk page in question, I don't give any credence to the Baptist BoN's claims, but Ryulong's responses were not only unreasonably rude stonewalling, but also clearly misrepresented RW as a theists-not-welcome site. That's why I completely agreed with Carpetsmoker calling Ryulong to order on that talk page. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
SkepticWombat and I disagree on a great many things, but are apparently in complete accord about Ryulong's nasty behavior toward the Baptist BoN. Moreover, I entirely agree that Carpetsmoker's bill of particulars about Ryu is accurate and damning, and that something should be done about Ryu's gross disruption of this wiki.---Mona- (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
It is enlightening to read through Ryulong's archived user talk pages (there are many of them). A pattern is very clear right from his early days at RW - belligerent resistance to the way things work around here and complete reluctance (or is it inability?) to ever admit that he might have been wrong. The naive suggestions made above (and below) about engaging him completely ignore his history and pattern of behaviour here. I think Carpertsmoker has summarised it all rather well. Ryu's behaviour towards the BoN the other day on the Baptist talk page was just inexcusably awful and I can see why that has prompted this discussion. There is little doubt in my mind that RW would be a better place without Ryulong. Equally, there is also little doubt that nothing will happen. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 17:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
As a lover of dramafests, I must say that there's quite a lot more fighting between pro- and anti- DragonDragon. Perhaps one might say that DragonDragon stirs far more shit than the average user. One thing is for sure - it's freakin' hilarious. Ban Ryu? Nah m8, then I won't have any more lulz from here. (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

What I'm seeing here[edit]

Is a Gish Gallop of storms in teacups being looked at with one hell of a magnifying glass. I'll give you the MLP drama, though that seems to have settled down mostly. For the rest, meh. Seriously, if you wanna start a coop about Ryu at least wait till he does something bad in an at-all noteworthy way. What has he done recently that warrants any attention at all? Talk rudely? Revert Wikipediapasta? Remove a superfluous extra navbar? Really dude. (talk) 18:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Not a Gish Gallop, but a list of real problematic behaviour to show a pattern. If you judge each case independently: meh, not too much to go on. If you look at the last six weeks alone combined: suddenly a pattern and problem appears! If I wanted to do a Gish Gallop I could have gone back much further.
"What has he done recently that warrants any attention at all" -> The last point triggered this (his comments on the Baptist page). Would this be coop-worthy for most other editors? Probably not (although I would have responded in a similar way, and take it up on their talk page if they didn't respond, as Ryulong hasn't, as this is clearly unacceptable imho). Is this the final straw for a problematic editor who is always difficult to deal with as soon as anyone disagrees with him on any subject? Yes.
I didn't put "Revert Wikipediapasta" on the list; in fact, I explicitly mentioned that I "was hardly enamoured by RBP". And saying that he "Remove[s] a superfluous extra navbar" is something of an euphemism. The navbar was part of many edits that RBP did, only Ryulong edit wars and is a twat over it, which fits the pattern.
Again, and I cannot say this enough, my problem is with the pattern. I can deal with occasional incidents and assholery; but I'm not willing to put up with incidents and assholery every time someone disagrees with Ryulong. As I stated above, I also think this does real damage to the community and site in general. Carpetsmoker (talk) 18:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
While walking to the supermarket I came up with an analogy that may be of use here: Say you're a boy scout leader, and one of your kids is throwing a tantrum. You set him aside so he cools down, and continue as usual. No biggie; kids are kids, right? Now lets say you have a kid who throws a very big tantrum; aside from the cooldown, maybe you have a quick word with his parents when he gets picked up, but still not really a problem. And now imagine you have a kid who throws a tantrum every week, and a big tantrum every month. What do you do? Learn to live with the fact that now you have to deal with this every week? That all the other kids are disturbed by this? That maybe you need to find an extra volunteer for the time lost managing this kid? Or, at some point, do you say "we can't go on like this any longer! And we need to talk about -----". 20:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


... now that everyone's finished insulting each other: [1] Stop threatening each other with blocks, thx. Try using the magical "article talk page" function. [2] Unless Carpetsmoker wishes to seek a ban, this isn't really a coop case. Take it up on his talk page, perhaps? [3] Personally, I find Ryulong incredibly annoying, because he (a) acts as if everyone with different mindsets is out to get him, (b) is not responsive to criticism and often repeats his earlier points as if they were never addressed, and (c) is condescending. That said, being annoying is not unique to Ryulong and is not enough to merit action from the mob. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 15:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree on that. Just being a dick is no banning reason on RW.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 15:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes it is. Avenger was banned for being a dick, as was Fat Aardvark and that Elvis guy. Carpetsmoker (talk) 15:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Fat Aardvark and Elvis were banned not for being mere dicks, but for vandals and trolls and Avenger was banned over an dispute with Mona with Paravant taking Mona's side and waving his mod-e-penor around.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 15:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
And yet it both resolved the ongoing dispute AND has so far left it resolved. I feel justified. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 16:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Because you ban and demote people to advance your stalking horse?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
If you feel my handling of the I-P dramafest was improper, please, open another section here about it. Repeated whining that I was acting alone and just swinging my mod-cock around without community backing amd even against the desires of the community is fun and all but the fact that you are unwilling to ever test just how unsupported you were is telling. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 16:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
"wishes to seek a ban, this isn't really a coop case" -> Why not? Isn't the coop to resolve conflicts, one way or the other?
"find Ryulong incredibly annoying [..] being annoying [..] is not enough to merit action" -> This is where I must disagree. At some point we, as a community, must say "enough"! Where that point exactly is, of course up for debate. IMHO, telling new editors to shut up because they're not atheist (which triggered this coop) is exactly the sort of Conservapedia-style mentality we don't want here. We put up with problematic editors (like Ryulong) because we want to encourage an "open" atmosphere where everyone who can engage in constructive debate feels comfortable contributing. To use Ryulong's language, that sort of stuff "breeds a toxic community". I don't think we should let this sort of stuff slide, as we have done for 10 months, because every individual incident is just slightly too small to act on.
Besides, consistent edit-warring over anything is more than just "being annoying". Carpetsmoker (talk) 15:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Nah, I think Conservapedia-style mentality is more like banning people for flimsy reasons (such as being 'mean'). Typhoon (talk) 15:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Repeated intentional disruption of the community isn't too flimsy, that worked with the given examples and with all the coop cases about him specifically. In additional to all the wonderful people he drags here in his wake. The problem in being a useful asshole is once that usefulness comes to an end. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
"being 'mean'" is a vast understatement. And even "being mean" can have real damage to a community, as people who are unwilling to put up with this will leave. Carpetsmoker (talk) 16:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
@Fuzzy, This isn't just the "Ban people page" its the conflict resolution page. Those don't always resolve into bannings or rights management, and trying to shunt this off is just the same kind of under the carpet sweeping that left 2007-2011 and 2011 - 2014 the hellhole of unending wikidrama that it was. There is a user conflict which is not resolving itself via talk page discussion and is only growing across the site - that is exactly what the coop is for.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 16:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Sure, I'll concede your point. That said, the CC isn't the best place to fix it -- bringing Ryulong into public fights has never gotten him to change in any substantive way. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 16:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately normal discussion doesn't seem to be either. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 16:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I wanted to post this with my original post, but wasn't able to find it. I found it: Assholes Are Killing Your Project. An interesting analysis on how "useful assholes" can be devastating to a collaborative project (coding or wiki makes little difference here). Here's the full talk. The Cost of Bad Behavior is also an interesting book in the real-world effects of this sort of stuff. Carpetsmoker (talk) 16:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

As I said above: "Ryulong [is] incredibly annoying" yet "the CC isn't the best place to fix it -- bringing Ryulong into public fights has never gotten him to change in any substantive way." Privately talking to him might work, but nothing short of [a] a total ban or [b] one or more topic bans appear likely to work. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 16:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Private discussion with Ryulong has thus far yielded repeated moments of self-realization followed by immediately jumping with both feet right back in. I'd say we're past the point of letting Ryulong provide the solution of his own free will. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 16:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
If so, as noted, then "nothing short of [a] a total ban or [b] one or more topic bans appear likely to work". Are there other alternatives? If not, then are we willing to enforce these bans? Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 16:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
I posted one possible alternative in my original post: "Reach an agreement with Ryulong on what constitutes acceptable behaviour, with clear and direct punishment if he breaches this agreement (such as a 3-hour ban, or something else)". This would, by the way, be something of a "last chance attempt" to salvage the situation, as far as I'm concerned. There are a number of agreements we could make, for example:
  • No undo-ing without any discussion
  • No ad hominums and fuck/shit/idiot/etc. in posts (show you can reason as an adult)
And maybe some other very clear points (where there can be no disagreement on what constitutes a violation)? ... Not sure if this is workable, but it's an idea... Carpetsmoker (talk) 16:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
This would be acceptable, as long as it goes both ways. Because Ryulong has been a target of both reverts without discussions (sup Paravant!) and a constant stream of verbal abuse (sup Arisboch!). Typhoon (talk) 16:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
No. Ryu has lost, entirely, the presumption of good faith. The penalty for that could be that he is precluded from certain behaviors that are not blanketly prohibited to others. We are not going to let him have a "defense" of: "But mommy, he did it first."---Mona- (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Pathetic. You unashamedly want to ensure that he fails these rules. Making it so that he'll get flooded by a torrent of abuse from assholes who know that he can't respond anymore. You want to turn him into a punching bag before chasing him away. Fuck you. Typhoon (talk) 17:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
[EC] Typhoon, check out our strawman article. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 17:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Some (not me, I explicitly disapproved of banning him here) want to jump the rules and ban him right away and these rules are not supposed to be (or shouldn't be) one-way.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 17:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, Arisboch verbally abuses pretty much anyone; not sure if Ryulong is being singled out here. There are now three other mods, so I think Paravant will be happy to step away from this and let the other mods handle anything situations that arise and may need mod intervention. Carpetsmoker (talk) 16:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Being a dick, by itself, is not sufficient reason to ban anyone, and ought not be. But being a dick constantly, and draining time and energy from productive users to the extent that the wiki is largely devoted to dealing with the problem user, is unacceptable. At some point the level and volume of dickishness exceeds what the wiki can and/or should tolerate, and Ryu has reached that level.---Mona- (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
"Arisboch verbally abuses pretty much anyone" And isn't disruptive of the wiki. Ryu is. Arisboch can be reasoned with (except on, uh, that issue). Reasoning with Ryu is utterly futile.---Mona- (talk) 17:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
I didn't say it's just Arisboch. I merely listed him as an example. There are many more who act like assholes towards him and will undoubtedly relish a chance to troll him knowing he can't respond. Typhoon (talk) 17:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
If Carpetsomker is serious about removing toxic behavior from this wiki, then he shouldn't have any problem to make these rules go both ways. Or is he now implying that shitty behavior from others is acceptable? Typhoon (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Again, no. Ryu is in the same position as a prisoner released early on parole. One loses some rights, and is permitted to be free only on conditions that do not apply to the citizenry at large.---Mona- (talk) 17:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Nonsensical comparison. You can do better, Mona. Typhoon (talk) 18:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

"If Carpetsmoker is serious about removing toxic behavior from this wiki, then he shouldn't have any problem to make these rules go both ways. Or is he now implying that shitty behavior from others is acceptable?" -> No, not at all. But Ryulong's behaviour stands out and is significantly worse than any others. You can be a little bit of an asshole; I may not like you, but I'll tolerate you. But you can't be a gigantic asshole. Ryulong falls more in the last category and not so much the first one. Carpetsmoker (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

We cannot keep just ignoring the fighting and hope it goes away[edit]

It doesn't matter which side you think is at fault, Ryulong and his crew or pretty much everybody else. This isn't a dispute which is just going to end itself and it is going to continue to flare up over and over until we do something about it, one way or another.

We cannot be the community which just sweeps fights and problems under the rug and hopes that it stays hidden, we've tried that in the past and it did nothing for the wiki but let long-term conflicts constantly keep coming back up long after any other community would have tried to do something about it.

I don't care what actual solution the coop comes to in this or who it decides to punish, but we cannot adopt a "This is a waste of time, do nothing" approach anymore, this has to be resolved or the wiki will suffer from it. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 17:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, here's a counter proposal:
Ban on sight for anyone who shows up here just to piss of Ryulong and also ban all Gators. Same effect, and we'll lose only such leading lights as Aneris. Hipocrite (talk) 17:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
That would work if Ryulong was tendentious only in the context of GGers. He's not, as innumerable articles (eg, MLP, Yonaguni) now show. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 18:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Ryulong is tendentious in the context of toxic internet mobs. GG and Bronies fit that. Typhoon (talk) 18:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
You can say that yes, but it doesn't make it not a half truth at best. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 18:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
I am neither a GG nor a Brony, and Ryu is tendentious in nearly every context I've seen him in. It's either his behavior, or that of a vast number of other editors who are productive and reasonable. #occamsrazor---Mona- (talk) 18:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
The only context you've ever seen him in is here, after being harassed by an internet hate mob. Hipocrite (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)



So our options for dealing with Ryu seem to be:

  1. Ban Ryulong
  2. Topic ban Ryulong
  3. Create a specific set of rules for Ryulong including "No undo-ing without any discussion" and "No ad homin[e]ms and fuck/shit/idiot/etc."
  4. Enforce WP:3RRWikipedia (or some variation) and a universal "No undo-ing without any discussion" rule.
  5. Do nothing and hope RW's death is slow and painful

Any others? Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 18:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

1, 2 or 3. Preferably 1. Then 2. Leaving 3.---Mona- (talk) 18:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Sigh. This isn't how these polls should be formatted at all, but I'll add that I've already said that #3 is the best choice as long as it goes both ways. Although I presume that #4 is also a global rule, isn't it? Typhoon (talk) 19:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Snark/troll section[edit]

A rationalwiki Tradition[edit]

Everyboy shut up. We're going to have a vote on voting.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 20:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Paravant, I suggest you work off of Fuzzy's "Options" and start voting. It should be done by a mod to avoid revert wars. And, in my strong view the discussion needs to be made to stay on track.---Mona- (talk) 20:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
This is a really shitty voting selection. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 20:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
I'd rather find out if people even want to bother before going into a vote on actual things. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 20:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but that makes no sense. Carpetsmoker went to a lot of trouble to set forth a case. If people think this is unworthy they can vote to do nothing.---Mona- (talk) 20:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

We want to do Something[edit]

  1. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. KrytenKoro (talk) 20:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  3. At least to keep the peace instead of this disgrace. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  4. Freakin' stupid to vote on voting, but fine.---Mona- (talk) 20:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  5. This seems a bit odd but okay. SolPyre (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  6. I want to ... dance! Oh, and also do something about Ryulong. Carpetsmoker (talk) 20:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

We want to do nothing[edit]

I want candy[edit]

  1. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. I like pie. MaillardFillmore (talk) 20:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  3. I prefer cake. Hipocrite (talk) 20:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  4. Everyone should get candy Typhoon (talk) 20:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  5. Huge bowls full of M&M's (one bowl each of peanut, regular, and peanut butter) is exactly what this Wiki needs right now. Gooniepunk (talk) 01:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


  • *bleats* (talk) 20:17, 7 December 42015 AQD (UTC)
  • Uhhhh... it looks like I totally missed something going on here, so I'm just going to stay out of it because that looks like a lot of text to catch up on. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 21:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


I need a drink[edit]

  • Preferably a large whisk(e)y or rum or, failing that, a G&T or Cuba Libre. Screwdrivers only acceptable if containing a good vodka and freshly squeezed orange juice. A Dark 'N' StormyWikipedia may pass muster as a chaser, Irish coffee as an aperitif. ScepticWombat (talk) 22:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm having a Guinness from a can in a Duvel glass. I'm not sure if this is legally allowed. Carpetsmoker (talk) 22:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    Whatever floats your boat. ScepticWombat (talk) 22:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    A magnum of a fine Merlot. — Unsigned, by: -Mona- / talk / contribs 22:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  • A cup of tea, please. Earl Grey, preferrably, with a good book and Wagner. JorisEnter (talk) 22:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    God save the Queen! You wouldn't happen to like crossword puzzles, red Jaguars, and the odd pint/whiskyWikipedia on occasion to, would you? ScepticWombat (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    I thought that all earl grey drinkers are Star Trek fans (especially those that drink it hot)? Carpetsmoker (talk) 22:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I hate staring at a great microbrewery out the window and we are verboten to partake. However, I think this is why the rule exists. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 22:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Two glasses of Prosecco followed by a non microwaved dinner. SolPyre (talk) 23:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    A non microwaved dinner? Well, ladida aren't we Mister Fancypants... I guess you even heat up baked beans rather than eating them cold straight from the canWikipedia too, you slow-food worshipping gourmet pansy... ScepticWombat (talk) 23:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, I guess I haven't had a few shots in a while... The Arctic Vixen [Get foxy with me ♥] 00:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

A mounted spectator rides past a herd of goats and stops to tell the goats they should be taller[edit]

Behavior on the Ryulong issue has been unbecoming and immature from both sides. The "rational" part of RationalWiki means that we're supposed to be above drama like this. I understand that such drama occasionally happens anywhere, but but we cannot let it be such a prominent issue here.

In my opinion the best option would be a week long ban of all of the offenders, Ryulong, Mona, Arisboch, and Kitsunelaine. That way everybody has a chance to cool down. De-sysop all of them and consider a longer ban if problems re-occur.

Just my two cents, having now read the whole thing.--Umichcynic (talk) 22:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't usually stoop to this level but; FUCK YOU and fuck the high horse you rode in on. Have you ever even glanced at the community standards page? SolPyre (talk) 22:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
You get a ban! And you get a ban! Everyone gets a ban! Typhoon (talk) 22:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
What? You, Umichcynic, are entirely missing the fact that Ryu has been cooped many, many times as well as disciplined by mods. The rest of us are not the problem here. Virtually every web site imposes rules and bans on its comments section (or closes them) to deal with problem users. This is the Internet, and it is sometimes necessary. That's why Carpetsmoker -- not me -- opened yet another Ryu coop case.---Mona- (talk) 22:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
"The "rational" part of RationalWiki means that we're supposed to be above drama like this." And that has been the case when? Seriously, this is just the kind of unrealistic expectations that are so silly, not to mention completely at odds with actual RW history (start counting old school users' remarks along the lines of "Remember that old shitfest in [insert year here]?") that it merits a facepalm of concussive dimensions. Oh, and that the suggestion of a ban and desysopping is effin' ridiculous and contains seemingly arbitrary list of "offenders" (what exactly are the supposed offences of the latter 3 in this context?). No, this is probably one of the less helpful posts in this ballooning coop case. ScepticWombat (talk) 22:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
ScepticWombat, as usual, displaying his logical thought process and rationality. 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Aw, shucks, you flatterer, you. *blushes* ScepticWombat (talk) 22:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
LMAO at the new heading, by the way. I probably should have not said anything. Still, the wall of insults above is not flattering to anybody. That's the point I was trying to make.--Umichcynic (talk) 23:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
I gotta say that the OP under this headline seems to be the most reasonable argument and solution here. Gooniepunk (talk) 00:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
+1 - David Gerard (talk) 00:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Since the OP hasn't yet deigned to reveal how (s)he decided that Mona, Arisboch, and Kitsunelaine should be sent to the stockade alongside Ryulong, perhaps one of you could enlighten me, given that you agree with the sentiment? ScepticWombat (talk) 00:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Or perhaps this refers to the suggestion that goats need to be be taller? That would actually make more sense. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 00:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I should have made the headline "A spectator mounted on a goat rides past a herd of goats and stops to tell the goats they should be taller, the spectator is under the delusion that they are riding a horse" instead of this one. SolPyre (talk) 01:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
"the best option would be a week long ban of all of the offenders, Ryulong, Mona, Arisboch, and Kitsunelaine" -> I am curious if my name is missing here by omission, or if this is intentional? I sure as hell aren't going to defend Arisboch, by the way. I wish he would have shut up as he only added nonsense and fed hostility. Doesn't necessarily mean that you can dismiss both sides as "unbecoming and immature from both sides" out of hand, in my opinion, just because *some* people acted in an immature way. Carpetsmoker (talk) 00:50, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Your illustrious self's conspicuous absence was indeed part of the subtext of my enquiries into the selection criteria. ScepticWombat (talk) 01:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Ban them all & let God sort it out. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Deus vult! (Okay wrong Catholic official & crusade, but quite appropriate anyway) ScepticWombat (talk) 01:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The worst thing I ever did on this page was troll Arisboch for being abusive towards me. I tried to engage CS in reasoned debate about the merits of his points but he ran away. I don't understand why you apparently think that is worthy of a banning. Also, I've never held sysop. And Carpetsmoker should definitely be included in this suggestion. :) - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 01:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

My comment to Carpetsmoker (and questions to the OP and those agreeing with him/her) pertains to you as well. But perhaps your indignation over being sent down with Ryulong may at least shed some light on the selection criteria. ScepticWombat (talk) 01:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
"Your objection to this only exemplifies my reasoning for putting you in here!" Right, but you haven't justified it at all. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 01:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Huh? Can't seem to find the quote you seem to be citing anywhere? What exactly are you referring to and getting at with that comment? ScepticWombat (talk) 01:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Since when did we here at RW have a law against paraphrasing? You said "But perhaps your indignation over being sent down with Ryulong may at least shed some light on the selection criteria.". I was objecting to that. I've been nothing but reasonable towards the people on this page (at least the ones who have sought to be reasonable.) - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 01:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
There are, of course, no RW rules against paraphrasing, but it's really annoying when done in a way that seems to imply a quote and especially when the paraphrase is apparently based off a misunderstanding of the post in question. I was actually suggesting that by having one of those singled out to be punished alongside Ryulong (i.e. you) objecting to their inclusion, you, I and others might finally get some explanation by either the OP in this section or those supporting his/her sentiment exactly why you, Mona and Arisboch were singled out (and not, say, Carpetsmoker). I thought my meaning was quite obvious from my previous posts in this section. ScepticWombat (talk) 01:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Oho. I see. My mistake, then (We agree!) - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 01:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I know, weird feeling isn't it? Don't worry, it probably won't last (nothing ever does, really, take comfort in that). ScepticWombat (talk) 01:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Eh, we've seemed to agree pretty often. I don't have a personal beef with anyone in this site, and those I do, I'm trying to work with. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 03:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Merge Ryulong, Mona, Arisboch, and Kitsunelaine into a single account in which every edit has to be unanimously approved by all four of them[edit]

Maybe they will learn about compromise and companionship and teamwork and friendship and such. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png I'm a survivor, keep on survivin' 01:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

My personal opinion is the Ryulong should be banned for 96 hours to send a point. My understanding is that there is a lot of unacceptable behavior coming from him, and keeping this website up to a certain standard of decency and quality should be something that we strive to uphold. With all of that said, I think the whole argument going on here is just a waste of everyone's time and is not really doing anything to help this site out. We ned to stop fighting like this. Everyone stop arguing and go edit an article with something good. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
One thing doesn't preclude the other - after all, I've made edits to masturbation and onanism while... eeeehhh... never mind... ScepticWombat (talk) 01:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
@Raysenn: Not enough popcorn in the world, mate. ScepticWombat (talk) 01:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Pbfreespace3, IMO 95 hour is the right amount and I will fight anyone to the death that is advocating 94 or 96 hours. Happy to compromise to 95 hours and one minute though. I also like the human centipede idea above. Tielec01 (talk) 01:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
The trolling isn't helping anything here, Tielec01. You knew exactly what I meant. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I vote in favor; on the condition that Avenger and YOU and me (for the sake of fairness) are added to the account and that you must personally get all 7 of us to agree unanimously on 10 edits everyday minimum TO THE ISRAEL ARTICLE. Oh, and if you fail even once that you agree to have your IP permabanned as a forfeit. Maybe you will learn about not making ridiculous suggestions. SolPyre (talk) 01:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
And such. SolPyre (talk) 01:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Are you talking to me? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I think he's talking to section OP. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 01:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Alright. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Sure, but only if you add FCP to the mix. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png Because shoving is for GROMMETS! 03:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
With pleasure. FUZZYCATPOTATO! GET OVER HERE! SolPyre (talk) 03:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Uh. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 04:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Hey! I'm glad you're here, I'm trying to distract myself from the more serious areas of this page by escalating this section to ridiculous proportions. Could you please agree to becoming an account frankenstein with seven other users for a day? (I promise it will only last a day, I won't agree to any edits resulting in Raysenn being permabanned and the conjoined nightmare ending.) Either that or deescalate the situation by refusing, which will make me a sad bluff calling skin sack :( SolPyre (talk) 04:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm partial to the skin-sack option. =P αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 04:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Aww shucks. I've implemented the skin-sack option user box ( :P ) SolPyre (talk) 05:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Paravant has been driven out[edit]

Congratulations, all you "do nothing" voters. He can't take it any more. Hung up the mod cape and left the site. He believes -- and he's right -- that no one will do anything until this wiki is so far gone, a desperate attempt will be made to set some rules, kick some out, but it won't do any good. I think he's right. Good job, mob.---Mona- (talk) 03:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't respond well to gunboat diplomacy or emotional blackmail - no matter how tired I am of Ryu and his defenders. Quite apart from any LANCB complications, if Paravant sticks to his guns and stays away, what to do with his almost pristine mod cape? Leave it on its hook in the wardrobe until next election, or will it simply pass to the runner-up with the most vote from the mod election? Please don't tell me we have to run a by-election. ScepticWombat (talk) 03:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure if he really was no intent to return, at least as a moderator. Any more info Mona? 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 03:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
He said this "I don't know if i'd come back, i'm rather big on Leaving and actually not returning when I decide to leave a place" on his talk page. That seems like he has no intent to return. SolPyre (talk) 03:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
He has told me it is final. He's looking for other venues to give his time and energy to. SW, I believe he modded Human before he left, as Human was first runner-up.---Mona- (talk) 03:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Can't blame him, he's been here since 2011 and maybe it would be good for him and the community if he took a long or permanent absence, but that's only a suggestion and may be incorrect. 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 03:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────This is serious bullshit. Yes, Paravant got a bit whacked out last month, but that's because of two users, who can't be gotten rid of. One of those is Ryu. We are going to lose more users, both those already here, and who never join. Paravant has been the most active moderator, by far. Without him, both Ryo and Avenger, and others like them, will simply overrun the place. I won't stay for that. If I don't see Goonie or some other mod take things in hand, I will leave, and I almost certainly will not be alone.---Mona- (talk) 04:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll admit there have been a few instances lately (after the election) when Paravant seemed to act with a rashness I hadn't noticed before. That said, I'll still be sorry to see him leave, but good to see that he is setting everything in order before exiting. I for one will welcome him back as editor or moderator any day of the week. I'm simply surprised, given the character of several of the do nothing votes (my own included) which emphasised resignation, rather than support for Ryulong, that this would be the last straw for Paravant. As I've written on Paravant's talk page in response to Kitsunelaine, I was being flippant with more than a hint of despondency in my do nothing vote, because I suspected that any censure would likely be an empty gesture, given that there still seems to be quite a number of editors who consider Ryulong's behaviour to be either excusable, a non-issue, or at least not one that should that should be punished (I'd suggest vandal binning Ryulong for the foreseeable future and/or sysop locking any page or talk page when he throws a wobbler on it). ScepticWombat (talk) 03:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Paravant takes a lot of shit, he was probably getting fed up. Not that that would excuses behavior like that from a mod, I'm just suggesting a probable reason he could be acting that way if he is in fact doing so. 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 04:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


Ban Ryulong[edit]

  1. Ban for seven days so 1) A clear message is sent, and 2) Ryulong and everyone else can cool down a bit, and all start afresh with patience and good intentions. I also support "Develop Reasonable Editing Pledges [..]" after the 1-week ban, by the way. Carpetsmoker (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    Good idea, but this does confuse the voting.---Mona- (talk) 21:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. I couldn't make up my mind for awhile but Paravant leaving has decided it. The endless problems that happen around Ryulong are causing damage to the wiki and that the trouble consistently being around him is unlikely to be a coincidence. Since a ban vote is highly unlikely to succeed I also support the pledge option below, any measure is better than indulging in the apathy of doing nothing. SolPyre (talk) 02:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

A question[edit]

Would these voters also support the other sanction methods? αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 04:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

If we can actually get a vote on sanctions that isn't then immediately ignored, I'd suggest vandal binning, rather than banning, Ryulong. That way, he'd have time to cool off between each edit which might cut down on the grudge matches he seems to generate like mushrooms after rain. Another possibility is a general acceptance that sysop-locking a page (inkl. talk pages) whenever Ryulong loses it is a valid way of dealing with his problematic behaviour. In either scenario (or a stricter one using both options), Ryulong would be able to continue to contribute, but with restrictions on the cadence of his editing, not so much on its contents. If Ryulong then demonstrates an ability not attack everyone he thinks is not on his team, he can then be restored to standard, though still un-mopped, editor status. ScepticWombat (talk) 04:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
That's a very good suggestion. I know we have clashed, but you often have quite good ideas.---Mona- (talk) 04:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Don't cue the trumpets and violins just yet; because I'm in the weird mental borderland between late night and early morning I'll be level with you and say that I personally include you among a handful of prominent mop wielders I privately consider to exhibit the warning signs of potential troublemakers (understood as in "more trouble than they're worth"), but not to the extent of necessitating actual censure. Of course it may be more about your (in my opinion mostly unnecessary) aggressive style that seems apt to turn a high proportion of relatively simple disagreements into bare knuckled grudge matches, but nevertheless I wasn't happy to see you get a mop (though I'll admit you don't seem to have abused it). Your efforts and stamina in duking it out with Avenger are much appreciated, however. If you want to respond to some of these graveyard shift-addled thoughts you're welcome to do so on my talk page. ScepticWombat (talk) 05:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually enforce general rules against tendentious editting[edit]

  1. Note: My vote would be for the section below, if it's Ryu-specific rules vs nothing at all. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 21:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    This would be nice to have regardless of whether or not Ryulong is staying. Typhoon (talk) 21:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    That's equivalent to doing nothing. We've been in this coop so many times, if he is allowed to start as if he has a blank slate we are all wasting our time, and I'd vote simply to ban.---Mona- (talk) 21:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    What the hell are you even blabbing about? This isn't necessarily about Ryulong. Wikis should have general rules against tendentious editing. Typhoon (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    This is a bit of a separate discussion. Not sure if we need it, but maybe we do. I'd like to hear more about it. Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    We have such rules, and they are clearly described in the guidelines. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 21:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    Changed section title. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 21:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    So what rules are we talking about, exactly? I don't see them in RationalWiki:Community Standards? Carpetsmoker (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    As I said, this is a vote for the staus quo. Making this whole exercise utterly moot. When I was told nothing could or would be done about Ryu David Gerard was identified as the blockade. He behaves that way, but those taking this route are functionally also avoiding the problem and doing nothing.---Mona- (talk) 22:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    So now you're moving from Ryulong to David? Typhoon (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    No. I (we) are very much still on Ryulong.---Mona- (talk) 23:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. Tielec01 (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  3. Vote for this if "set of pledges" fails.KrytenKoro (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Develop reasonable editing pledges for Ryulong to follow (with short temporary blocks for violations)[edit]

  1. KrytenKoro (talk) 20:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC) (do not include with votes for ban)
    Will these pledges also apply to people interacting with Ryulong? I really hope we won't end up with a situation where scumbags will be free to troll him with reverts and insults in order to break his pledges. Typhoon (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    I could be persuaded on this option, provided it has teeth. With the option of a permanent ban at any moderator's discretion.---Mona- (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    The pledges I envision (see here, but these are only my suggestion and other editors are free to suggest others) kind of...already do apply to everyone. They are specifically addressing the behaviors Ryulong has done that other editors get blocked or banned for, but have been consistently swept under the carpet because Ryulong is, to borrow a phrase, a "useful asshole". I honestly respect Ryulong's work, I very much do not want him banned, but I have to admit that he has shown no regret or comprehension that what he's done are violations. Instead, there's a consistent rationalization of "other people have done it (to a lesser degree)" and "they deserved it". What I am voting for would only allow short "slaps on the snout" to Ryulong -- I absolutely do not want my vote to be seen as support for a proposal that includes bans.KrytenKoro (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. Needs to be fleshed out a bit later, but I'm willing to try this if Ryulong is. Carpetsmoker (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    Are you also willing to take the same pledge? Or is it OK for others to engage in it? Typhoon (talk) 20:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    As I've already explained, Ryu is akin to a probationer. He's lost some rights and the freedom others have. That's a condition of avoiding prison/banning.---Mona- (talk) 21:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    You really are shameless in your attempt to turn him into a punching bag. Typhoon (talk) 21:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    (ec) I don't think I've engaged in any serious problematic behaviour, certainly not systematically. What's being punished here is systematic problematic behaviour. So that's a no. By the way, this is rather off-topic for this coop case, but if you disagree and think I have engaged in some problematic behaviour, take it up on my talk page and we can continue the discussion there. I would like to know if I'm considered problematic (no guarantees I'll agree with you, though). Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    The problem is that there's a entire brigade of people who want to troll him away from here, and making these pledges two-way is the only way to prevent them from abusing it. Typhoon (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    It's not gonna happen, nor should it.---Mona- (talk) 21:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  3. With none of the oppositions balance fallacy. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    What the hell is so special about this guy that he gets his own code of "editing pledges?" Either he plays by the rules/guidelines that we all do, or he doesn't. I know that the special snowflakes of the world think that they need their own rules because they are so, so precious, but the guidelines are clear and unambiguous and literally no other editor needs their own unique code of conduct. Tell him to grow up and play the game like an adult. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 21:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    Indeed. We should all be following the same rules. Typhoon (talk) 21:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    Because I don't want to ban him, a topic ban won't solve the issue and doing nothing will only mean we'll be back here next week.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    (ec) I think we can be accommodating to people's flaws to some degree. Only other option is see is a permanent ban; not sure if this will "make the vote", but there's a reasonable chance it will (which should say enough). And if Ryulong isn't dealt with (some way) he will only continue to further damage RW's community, reputation, and content until he will be banned in a year or two years' time or until he has succeeded to kill off most of this site. This might sound overly dramatic, but I really think this has the potential to kill off the site. I mean, you basically left a week that one time over Ryulong. How many people have left *permanently*? See: "assholes are killing your project" video I linked in the first post. Short version is that Gentoo, once a very popular Linux distro, was killed off by a bunch of assholes; Gentoo still survives, but has significantly lost in influence and size... Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    Exactly. Many, many web sites have started out with laissez-faire commenting rules, and eventyually had to impose banning or see the whole comment section destroyed by assholes. Some even closed comments entirely. Popular Science did. The same dynamic is in play here.---Mona- (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  4. It's abundantly clear that Ryulong's continued presence here is toxic to this community. I've long thought that Ryulong is the shining example of a well-intentioned editor who doesn't understand or care to understand what it means to edit in good faith. While I would say that it can be something to ignore if he were new, he's not new to RationalWiki, or Wikis in general. Indeed, as I've said many times before, Ryulong creates his own problems (baiting GG trolls, for example) andthen pretends he's immune from the consequences. Therefore, it is my opinion that this is thebest option to enforce some sort of good-faith editing on his part. Gooniepunk (talk) 03:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Do nothing[edit]

  1. Hipocrite (talk) 20:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC) (short blocks option preferable to banning).
  2. Since those stupid pledges are going to be set up in an easily abused way, I'm going with what Hipocrite suggested. Typhoon (talk) 21:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  3. He is Gerard's golden boy, and as such, this is the option that will prevail. Might as well get on the winning side. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 21:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    You're seriously telling me that because you anticipate David Gerard will reject the community's vote, you are voting to do nothing? Wow.---Mona- (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    Pretty much. I'm also voting to do nothing because this is the nth Coop case that's been brought against the guy and literally nothing has changed as a result. I see no reason why this one will be any different, and I like being on the winning side every now and again. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 21:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    Passive aggression ill becomes you - David Gerard (talk) 21:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    You're not wrong, but it's clear that minus your protection, especially if characters like Ace, Huw, and Nutty were still active, Ruylong would probably no longer be here. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 21:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    Am I missing something here? Has DG done something previously that would make you think he'd abuse his mod powers like that? SolPyre (talk) 21:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    Influential/long-time/determined users do not need to use or abuse mod powers to affect outcomes.It happens all the time -- I've done it a thousand times myself. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 21:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    Okay... I guess I can see how that would work. SolPyre (talk) 21:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    Shortly into my tenure here I was told via email by a respected user that the Ryu problem cannot be resolved because David will never allow it. It was among the reasons this user dropped their participation level. As a consequence, I did not coop Ryu because I was persuaded that it would be futile.---Mona- (talk) 21:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    [citation needed] Typhoon (talk) 21:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    [6]. Hipocrite (talk) 21:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)David Gerard (talk) 21:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    Below, Sol Pyre asked why I made the inquiry of David. That is my answer. At least one (non)lurker takes that position. And they've been here a lot longer than I have which is why they advised me on a variety of matters.---Mona- (talk) 22:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    Serious question -- Are you related to Ryu and/or friends IRL?---Mona- (talk) 21:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    Doxing is prohibited here. Hipocrite (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    Yeah, I don't think thats doxing but that question might have been a bit uncharacteristic of you Mona. Outside of asking as a jab at DG why ask that? SolPyre (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    You Hipocrite have a most peculiar notion of what constitutes doxing. Anyway, David's protection of a clear problem user is perplexing absent some sensible explanation.---Mona- (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    Not going to defend Mona's phrasing, and David can of course vote as he wants, but I am also quite puzzled by David's apparent unwavering support for Ryulong. Only explanation I can think of is that he doesn't come here enough to really see (& most of all, *experience*) the problem first-hand. I honestly wonder if he even read the first post completely (he certainly didn't think about it, as that requires a few hours and there's not enough time for that). Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    "Mona's phrasing" was entirely serious. Why David takes this constant position is bewildering. It's how some parents act, that is, the "not my little angel" complex.---Mona- (talk) 22:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  4. Pledges and whatnot are unneeded bureaucracy. The right way to have handled all of this was with short bans. If they stick, they stick, if they don't you need to just suck it up. As annoying as Ryulong is/was, the histrionic reactions to his bad behaviour have become worse. A pox on everyone who's thrown more than a couple of lines onto this tyre fire. Queexchthonic murmurings 21:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    I think the pledges thing was concocted as a way to seem willing to compromise. Something needs to be done. Or we'll all just be here for Ryulong coop cases forever and a day.---Mona- (talk) 21:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    "Pledges" would involve Ryulong admitting that he was wrong about something or that his behaviour has been disruptive. That doesn't tend to happen. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    from today. Hipocrite (talk) 21:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    He only admits he is wrong in calling RBP a gator. A ludicrous accusation disconnected from any sense of reality to begin with. He doesn't admit he's wrong on any of the stuff where it matters: eg. being a a general twat and unconstructive over it. Carpetsmoker (talk) 22:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    "just suck it up" -> So, just suck it up indefinitely, don't whine, and accept any and all abuse? Carpetsmoker (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  5. I'll happily pick the option most likely to actually happen - not to mention the easiest one (I'm lazy). Anywho, Ryu seems to have LANCB'ed (again), so apart from the popcorn value I really don't see much point. Ryulong has his supporters as well as opponents, so I doubt anything will be done either way (i.e. punishment of Ryu or some of his most vociferous critics) and everyone will continue to live their more or less happy lives online or IRL in this, if not the best of all possible worlds, then at least the actual of all probable worlds. ScepticWombat (talk) 22:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    His LANCBing right before a crucial anti-Ryulong decision has happened, I think, twice before, and people voted just like you, making it harder to stop his behavior when he inevitably comes back. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 22:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    Heh, I actually expect him to come back, but that's not why I see little point in continuing with the creative solutions. The reason for my resigned/fatalistic/relaxed/lazy attitude is that there doesn't seem to be a preponderance either way of Ryulong's critics vs. supporters, so I gauge the wind and support the winning status quo: Do fuck all about anyone in either group... ScepticWombat (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    Well, this is astonishing. People who agree Ryu is a problem are voting to do nothing because reasons. Primarily that nothing is ever done about Ryu. I give up. Let the all-Ryu-all-the-time shitfest continue.---Mona- (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    See, I told you I was on the winning team. Inertia FTW... ScepticWombat (talk) 22:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  6. Are you kidding me? Ryulong's a goldmine of schadenfreude. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png It took him 0.2 seconds to lock the door. 23:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    Whose schadenfreude and over what are you referring to? I'm being genuinely curious/puzzled/clueless here. ScepticWombat (talk) 23:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    I will never not be amused by Ruylong's endless capability to live in his own little world where nobody ever disagrees with him, unless it's because the person in disagreement is a MRAndroid GamerGater who wants to silence him because that's what bad people do. In other words, Ruylong mindset has more to do with shitty 80s cartoons than any sort of collaborative project. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png I AM VERY DISGUSTED WITH THE TRASHY MAN 23:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    And so, because he amuses you, letting the wiki as a whole suffer from the Drama his "amusing antics" cause you is perfectly acceptable? --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    Yep. Plus, this is obviously the option that will prevail, and I may as well play for the winning side for once. Blimey, I wonder how people with integrity manage to get through life. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png An excellent earlobe 00:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
    Well Paravant, you can simply stay busy sysop-protecting every article at which Ryu edits, as you did (prudently) yet again today. Because it's fun and good for the wiki.---Mona- (talk) 23:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    (EC)Which shitty 80s' cartoons? Colour me confused (sorry, not trying to be obtuse here; I'm simply not getting the reference). ScepticWombat (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    This is dumb logic Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 23:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    It seems to me that this entire coop is an airing of dirty laundry and nothing more. While I don't care for Ryulong, there is nothing of substance in this coop worth anything actionable. Yes, Ryulong has been a pain in the ass in the past (especially with sysop rights), but I've not seen anything he's done since the MLP fuckfest, which seems to have petered out, that makes an actionable coop case. As such, I'm voting that the coop case end with nothing happening and all the editors dickwagging here (on all side of this issue) to step away from their computer and go out jogging for an hour or so and get some fresh air. Gooniepunk (talk) 00:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
    So someone can be consistently disruptive and counter-productive, yet always staying just under the line of coop-worthy incidents? Carpetsmoker (talk) 00:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
    Since the MLP shitfest (where I believe both sides made complete jackasses of themselves), I don't see anything substantive enough to warrant a coop case. A good reprimand, perhaps, but nothing more than that. Now, being as it is Ryulong, that's not to say he won't make a jackass of himself eventually, but this ain't it. Gooniepunk (talk) 00:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
    Ryulong has been a member for 10 months and has been problematic since day 1, continuing a 8 year pattern on wikipedia. I hope we can agree on this? Now, the question here is, at what point do we say to a consistently problematic editor that "enough is enough"? Or, do you want to indefinitely allow this sort of behaviour? I, as detailed in my first post, think this actively harms RW in a number of ways; to put it bluntly, no one wants to battle assholes constantly or join a site with assholes. It's no different from being at a job where you're being called an idiot and asshole and whatnot every other day: at some point you say "enough is enough" and either try and fix it (which is what the coop is) or just quit and find a different job (or in RW parlance, LANCB). Carpetsmoker (talk) 00:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
    Give it up Carpetsmoker, friend. There's no will here to do anything about the kind of user who degrades or destroys sites. This site will, therefore, continue to attract such users; those who can tolerate them will outnumber those who cannot. We make our peace with that and see if we can nevertheless function here, or we decide we cannot, and leave. I specifically discouraged a few bright folks from joining here after initially encouraging them to when I joined and shortly after. This simply confirms that I was right to do that. ---Mona- (talk) 01:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
  7. For the same reasons as Gooniepunk above, minus the south park style balance fallacy. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 01:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Ban Ryulong's opponents[edit]

Which users specifically are we talking about? SolPyre (talk) 20:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Hopefully Mona. Typhoon (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Stop.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 20:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I think Arisboch at the very least deserves a banning for his behavior towards me. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 01:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Towards you? This is not about you its about Ryulong ... Unless you are Ryulongs sock... AAAAAAAAAh my paranoia! IT BURNS! And there's no way to ever know for sure! AAAAAAAh the paranoia how will I sleep tonight?! SolPyre (talk) 03:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
...Uh. No, I'm talking about Arisboch's behavior towards me (which believe it or not, does exist) in one of the threads on this page. Just CTRL+F Arisboch, and read. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 03:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Ryulong voluntarily leaves (?)[edit]

—Ryulong (talk) 20:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

You've LANCBed before. The process can and will continue.---Mona- (talk) 21:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
What Mona said. Unless you plan to actually not come back and do it all over again, stop this.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
(ec)Don't want to be mean here, but "leaving and never coming back" is NOT a solution, as you've LANCB-ed several times and came back within hours or days. If you really want to "leave and never come back" as a solution (and it is a solution, although not necessarily the best one for everybody) I think we should place a ban so it won't happen that Ryulong comes back after a week (or a month...) and continues the same pattern described above again. Please think about it if this is really what you want. :-) Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Deleted browser history from desktop. Deleting from tablet. Have fun with that Azerbaijani dude's quotes. And I've only done it once but this time I'll let it stick for more than a day.—Ryulong (talk) 21:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, look at that. The problem has resolved itself. Still, Ryu has a long and storied history of a pathological obsession with wikis. Let's work under the assumption that they are going to return the second someone touches GG or MLP. Tielec01 (talk) 21:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Can't help but feel this is a calculated move on R's part to sap the momentum of the process. SolPyre (talk) 22:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
"We'll meet again, don't know where, don't know wheeeen..." Oh, wait! I know this one: Right here on RW in a not-so-distant future! Here's to seeing you again soon Ryulong and don't worry about any actual sanctions coming out of this; ain't gonna happen. ScepticWombat (talk) 22:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
It seems I was wrong about the sanctions. I'll happily admit my failure in trying to play the prophet. Glad to see I wasn't correct in this instance. ScepticWombat (talk) 04:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I concur Sceptic. 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 05:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
See you tomorrow. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png Rollin' around at the speed of sound 23:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

A notice[edit]

(A) Controlling recent changes for one day, (B) making a moderator essentially leave, (C) leading to accusations of doxxing, bad faith, and personal vendettas, and (D) spilling over to 10 (?) user talk pages is enough.

Given that currently [1] the majority of the community (2 + 3 + 4 = 9) favors some action against Ryulong, while [2] only a minority (4) genuinely opposes action against Ryulong and [3] only an even smaller minority (3) oppose action against Ryulong on grounds that it'll fail (or is funny), I will [i] vandal bin Ryulong (Or at least maintain Goonie's vandal bin. Damn, we've got multiple mods.), so that if he returns he cannot excessively edit war.

This seems the bare minimum required to show that (a) no users are above the rules, (b) that LANCBing does not save you from punishment, and (c) that coop decisions can actually have an impact (Wow!).

If the coop ultimately decides to raise or lower sanctions, I will respect that. If, however, this discussion again degrades into personal insults and shitposting, I will gladly archive it and lock both pages for a week.

In retrospect, I (or another mod) should have acted long ago. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 04:50, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

+1 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 04:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Relatedly, Paravant seems markedly more likely to return now than 6 hours ago, and has regained his previous rights. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 04:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
+1 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 04:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
It is conditional, however. Watching so many decide that doing nothing was the only action that could happen and thus making sure that stayed true by voting for it disturbed me on many levels, because it's so antithetical to how I look at the world. We can't be the website or community that just gives in and lets bad things happen just because "what can you do?"--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 04:58, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Conditional? Care to elaborate? 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 04:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Paravant, I am so, so glad you are back. It's unfortunate it took all this drama to finally effect that which was necessary. Perhaps now when many solid users are clamoring for something meaningful to be done it will be taken seriously, as it was not in this case, until. Let us now go forth and edit real good!---Mona- (talk) 05:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Suffice to say that the MTTH is very fast if things continue like they did today, it's just to counter to my values on the world..--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 05:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I'd just like to clarify my vote by saying that I didn't see the drama fallout happen until a couple minutes before I made that edit, and didn't have the time to immediately follow up on the situation. I know that there had been drama surrounding Ryulong (which had also affected me tangentially) but I didn't realize the extent of the drama and didn't want to leap to a decision without becoming fully informed.
So... sorry about that. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 18:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

FCP and Paravant, are there any sanctions outside of vandal binning that should be imposed, or just vandal binning for now? Gooniepunk (talk) 05:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I say just vandal bin, unless "the coop ultimately decides to raise or lower sanctions". This mod fiat should be anti-HCM, not anti-democracy. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 05:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
What Democracy seems to ultimately want is actual action, however, so I think the Vandal bin should stick unless people really complain. Many People have voted in the way they have "because nothing will happen" so if we show them that yes, something will happen maybe that will end the HCM. (atleast this one, not the upcoming one --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 05:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

What is HCM?---Mona- (talk) 05:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Look at the top of this page. =P Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 05:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
will the mods be doing anything to protect the rights to participate in this alleged democracy for people who disagree with them? The antagonists in the case were abusing their tools to silence and regularly removing, without archiving, the statements of people who disagreed with them. Hipocrite (talk) 07:04, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Can you link to the diffs? oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 07:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
[7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]....
The vast majority of those have been addressed and your decision to bring them up again strikes me as bad faith. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 07:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I am not aware of them being addressed. Can you link to the diffs? Hipocrite (talk) 07:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Stop trying to restart drama. There's your diffs. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 07:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm not trying to "restart" drama. This was never finished. Hipocrite (talk) 07:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes it was. Three of the 4 mods decided that Moderator fiat would provide the solution to the problem and have implemented that decision. The problem layed out in the coop has been addressed and a roadmap for the future and a possible rehabilitation for Ryulong has been set out. Stop trying to drag fights from the drama out of the archive. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 07:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Do try to keep up. "This mod fiat should be anti-HCM, not anti-democracy." If there's going to be a functioning democracy, then shit like what I link can't keep happening. Hipocrite (talk) 07:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
@People who are bad in Hipocrites Eyes: Don't unjustly remove comments from discussions unless we must. There. Solution provided. Moderators have provided a solution to your issue. go to sleep. If it is not night whee you live, go for a walk. If it is cold outside, read a book. The drama is over and we have no reason to drag out the hell of today into tomorrow. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 07:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
EC) I am concerned that talk on a Chicken Coop decision was removed, however. Were those comments made before or after the Moderators acted by fiat? Granted, it won't change the outcome of the Ryulong decision, but I am opposed to such dissent-silencing tactics in an ongoing debate. Gooniepunk (talk) 07:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Well before. Note that I'm not even talking about reverting the reasonable temporary decision put in place by the Mods, just the abuse of tools and the removal of comments. Hipocrite (talk) 07:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
With that, though, I'm pissed as hell so I'm leaving again. I hope when I get back someone will have actually told people to stop removing other peoples comments that hurt their delicate feelings, and told people who feel that they can block people they disagree with that they can't do that - and they definitely can't toolwar to do it. Hipocrite (talk) 07:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
The fact you currently have sysop and are unblocked should answer some of your questions already. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 07:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
If you ask me, there should be another coop case opened on what Carpetsmoker and Mona did, because I find it unacceptable. However, I will leave that ball in Hypocrite's court. It certainly worth a Chicken Coop decision, though I see no need at this point for the moderators take over the case, when the mob could handle it. Gooniepunk (talk) 08:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── "Carpetsmoker and Mona did," !! What did I do? (I don't know what CS did, either.) Seriously, I didn't do anything in violation of the rules!---Mona- (talk)

I won't stop him, certainly. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 08:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

If there is a way to secure a promise from the obviously guilty parties that they will not, under pain of some sort of appropriately horrific punishment, repeat their sins, that would put a quick end to this. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 08:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

All that I have to say about my vile crime said at Gonnie's page. Section 21.---Mona- (talk) 18:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


Bluntly put, Vordrak, a known Gamergate troll has shown up and I have decided to permablock them on site. This is because, while I have little interest in Gamergate, their antics on Wikipedia are very familiar to me. While it is generally the practice of this Wiki to ignore peoples' lives outside from RationalWiki, I know from my experience with them on Wikipedia that nothing possibly good can come of allowing them here and, indeed, we'll only have lots of harassment of editors to come. As such, I made the arbitrary decision to ban them on sight. If anybody has a problem with that, please look up their antics on Wikipedia and see for yourself that they are repeating that behavior here. If you still have a problem with it, then we can discuss it. But just know that I am very much acting in the best interests of my fellow RationalWikians here. Thank you. Gooniepunk (talk) 13:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Just so it is clear, Vordrak's antics include doxing editors and then smearing them as pedophiles. He's got no morals at all. Typhoon (talk) 13:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Completely irrelevant, what he did outside of RW. If he does something bad here, we sanction him, but until then, we should act under the presumption of innocence. And permabans are almost not done here.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 13:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I normally wouldn't ban people on-sight, but if you look through their history on Wikipedia, you'll see the same patterns of behavior here. I was intimately familiar with what went down over there, and am fearful as fuck of it repeating itself here. We don't need it. Just trust me, I'd love to go about RationalWiki's normal routine on this one, but of all the Wikipedia trolls I've encountered, this one is particularly scary and dangerous. Gooniepunk (talk) 13:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree with this decision. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 13:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Ditto. He's a clear danger to this wiki. Typhoon (talk) 13:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
There may be BLP issues w.r.t. the Timeline article, but Vordrak is not someone who would raise them in good faith or who could be trusted to present facts truthfully. Edits so far are arguably already ban-worthy. An indefinite block, without talkpage, seems a step too far as a first step. But if we decide to be more lenient we should certainly be prepared to shut them down fully and with finality if they get up to any of their usual tricks here. Off-RW behaviour is normally ignored, but if there is to be an exception then the potential for RW to be used as a platform for harassment or doxxing would be one of them. I also wouldn't want to see Vordrak become the centre of another saga of tendentious argumentation, point-missing and recycling of PRATTs, as we've seen before from the GG camp, if only because it's so terribly boring now. On the other hand, if other editors want to bat idiots like this from paw to paw, go hog wild. Queexchthonic murmurings 13:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
If a member in good standing says they are well-familiar with the outrageous misbehavior of a newbie from another site, I support taking that strongly into account. (The character and judgment of the proposing editor are placed at issue, and in this case the assessment is positive.) Like many if not most absolutes, a complete unwillingness to consider behavior elsewhere is dumb. I would only suggest that Vordrak be binned and see how s/he behaves. If after a week the editing isn't outrageous s/he could be unbinned. This wiki has had enough drama and we are entitled to protect our environment from known bad-faith asshats.---Mona- (talk) 15:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Speaking as a mod: +1 to this. Holy shit we don't need this asshole here - David Gerard (talk) 15:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
If the Ruylong debacle taught me anything, it's that those who have shown a pattern of sourcable wiki-destructive behaviour over long periods of time have burned their bridges. I mean, it's not that hard to start anew with a completely random sock. These people stick with their usernames and their disregard for everything but themselves. Goonie and the mob... count me in. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I know Goonie well and trust his judgement re: the welfare of the wiki. If he says this is what's best, I won't argue with him. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Trust me, man. If I know Vordrak well enough, his antics will be on the level of what we banned TK and RobSmith for some years ago: legal threats, on and off-site harassment, accusations of, in this case, pedophilia, threats against users, etc. Keeping them around will not be anything close to fun or intelligent. Gooniepunk (talk) 18:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Listen to Goonie. He generally knows what he's doing. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Email just received[edit]

Legal status: put it this way, I'm posting it here - David Gerard (talk) 17:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Delivered-To: dgerard@gmail.com
Received: by with SMTP id 15csp566005itk;
        Thu, 10 Dec 2015 07:32:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by with SMTP id vw4mr17517603pac.9.1449761542279;
        Thu, 10 Dec 2015 07:32:22 -0800 (PST)
Return-Path: <matthopkins@thewitchfindergeneral.com.604065c5072b42c1.email81.com>
Received: from s6.email81.com (s6.email81.com. [])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTP id wo9si3076902pab.117.2015.
        for <dgerard@gmail.com>;
        Thu, 10 Dec 2015 07:32:22 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of matthopkins@thewitchfindergeneral.com.604065c5072b42c1.email81.com designates as permitted sender) client-ip=;
Authentication-Results: mx.google.com;
       spf=pass (google.com: domain of matthopkins@thewitchfindergeneral.com.604065c5072b42c1.email81.com designates as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=matthopkins@thewitchfindergeneral.com.604065c5072b42c1.email81.com;
       dkim=pass header.i=@email81.com
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/simple; d=email81.com; s=sel3; h=resent-date:resent-message-id:content-transfer-encoding:resent-from:subject:content-type:message-id:date:mime-version:reply-to:sender:from:to; bh=Y2TmRj5uQzn7Q8AJ7zrgs738fRw=; b=fnbs3jOnWZX+nwC2z9rPheac9MwFp1NWQeXbeqSAjuEWK/m10M+941QCyrJXeugYkfCNDpbnHBRBwZV4vyQvCb26Z8CcmhBxHy1YaU4XHgqRkxDz7kYvDm9uq2RoejJvVB39j2vK4NlkH1+a0KHh+opuCykUsIcxBCsO3+byImY=
Received: from s5.email81.com ([]) by s6.email81.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959);
	 Thu, 10 Dec 2015 08:26:15 -0700
Received: from s13.email81.com ([]) by s5.email81.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 10 Dec 2015 08:32:22 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 15:32:28 -0000
Resent-Message-ID: <201512102843.604065c5072b42c1@s13.email81.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-From: "matthopkins@thewitchfindergeneral.com" <matthopkins@thewitchfindergeneral.com.604065c5072b42c1.email81.com>
thread-index: AdEzX/o6hl3hBQ6XTx+Zyd3ABe32Yg==
Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message
Importance: normal
Priority: normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.4913
Subject: Rationalwiki Coop Case
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (11D257)
Message-ID: <8AFD94CD-7F02-46F8-A523-76AD8FE5FEB5@thewitchfindergeneral.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 15:32:10 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - gator4037.hostgator.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - gmail.com.getnotify.com
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - thewitchfindergeneral.com
X-BWhitelist: no
X-Exim-ID: 1a73Cb-000V3F-Rs
X-Source-Sender: ([]) []:52791
X-Source-Auth: matthopkins@thewitchfindergeneral.com
X-Email-Count: 2
X-Source-Cap: dm9yZHJhazt2b3JkcmFrO2dhdG9yNDAzNy5ob3N0Z2F0b3IuY29t
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Dec 2015 15:32:28.0087 (UTC) FILETIME=[FA125470:01D1335F]
Reply-To: "Matthew Hopkins" <matthopkins@thewitchfindergeneral.com>
Sender: "Matthew Hopkins" <matthopkins@email81.com>
From: "Matthew Hopkins" <matthopkins@thewitchfindergeneral.com>
To: <dgerard@gmail.com>
Return-Path: <matthopkins@thewitchfindergeneral.com.604065c5072b42c1.email81.com>

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

Content-Type: text/plain;
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi David,

I have posted a (polite) response to the Coop case about me here - https://w=

A couple of observations. Firstly, as my response makes clear, I did not 'sm=
ear' anyone. All my articles were sourced with witness statements.

Secondly, I would never do anything illegal in real life. However, I have su=
ed people over internet libel before, successfully. As you know I have been =
praised in Parliament for my legal skills (for helping vulnerable women, no =
less). You are a trustee of RationalWiki and therefore liable for what is wr=

I am particularly concerned by the allegations of 'harassment' because not o=
nly are they baseless but I recently sued a person and the police over alleg=
ations. I forced my accuser to resign, disgraced, and made the police apolog=
ise too. I link to my article - http://matthewhopkinsnews.com/?p=3D1430 .

Bullying teenagers is one thing, but you know how the law works here in the =
UK. If you cannot prove I am guilty of 'harassment' (and your cited evidence=
 is a deleted Ghazi post) then a Court will find you liable in defamation. I=
s posturing online worthy your home?

Kind regards,

Sam Smith

writing as
Matthew Hopkins
The Witchfinder General

Sent from my iPhone
So he's officially butthurt. This letter enough to add him to RW:Pissed at us? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I think so. Go ahead. Typhoon (talk) 18:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Let's hold off on doing so for a while. We aren't sure how far this is going to go, and the last thing I want to do is exacerbate the problem. Gooniepunk (talk) 18:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
More than likely Vordak's going to get added eventually. Why wait? (talk) 18:38, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
And you are who? Typhoon (talk) 18:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
And who are you to demand everyone reveal everything about themselves? That's pretty intimidating, and a prime reason why I don't use wiki accounts.
So you want to push us more into this mess while hiding who you are? Why should we listen to you? Typhoon (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Listen to Goonie. He generally knows what he's doing. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, he'll get added eventually. But right now, this is an ongoing hot-button issue, and the less we do to try and fan the flames, the less painful this will be and the quicker it'll get itself over with. Gooniepunk (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Ignore it. The U.S. doesn't allow collection of judgments based on laws the U.S. does not have. UK law does not apply to this wiki. But I'm not wearing my lawyer hat with this opinion and if anyone is worried run it past the actual lawyer(s) for this site.---Mona- (talk) 18:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
My signature might as well be "Let's do what Goonie says". So... let's do that, and wait. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Adding: I do agree with Goonie. Just saying there's nothing to get excited about.---Mona- (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Lovely. OBEDIENCE TO VORDRAK OR HE WILL TAKE YOUR HOUSE. No, he doesn't threaten or anything.
Ah, well, I supposed it's deserved for giving the GGers free play. -- (talk) 20:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Man, if this is him being "polite", what's his idea of being unpolite? (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
He'll try to accuse us of being pedophiles. No joke, it's his modus operandi. Typhoon (talk) 21:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
That's the bloke who also went after Oo00l00n/Bil1ingham of blockbot fame, I guess David Gerard knows this case. Maybe it gives you some insights about what to do. He caused him apparently some trouble, but I don't know to which extent (yes, I admit, we loled along when that went down, but felt the bloke here was also somewhat on the lulz side, essentially berk vs berk). /0.2 cent — Aneris ✻ (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

This was the fuckwit who sent the totally-not-threatening-no-honest threatening letters after the Patreon hack? Man, he is just aching for an opportunity to explain himself to an unsympathetic magistrate, isn't he? Scotch what I said above, keep him banned and salt the earth he's tainted. Queexchthonic murmurings 21:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

It's standard MO in many fora to permaban people for making legal threats, so yeah, to hell with him.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I made the mistake of looking at his blog. What a revolting individual. Ban in advance of incoming shitfest? Yes, for sure.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 00:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 00:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

This email makes me want to get elected to the RMF board so that I can be one of the people he is threatening to sue. An odd impulse now I think about it. SolPyre (talk) 22:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Am I the only one who cracked up at the "Sent from my iPhone" bit at the end? |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png I've got canned heat in my heels tonight 01:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

"Sent while taking a shit" Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:49, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Vordrak 2[edit]

I think that you guys were too quick to ban Vordrak. His activity here didn't seem at all negative: Special:Contributions/Vordrak. His ban appears purely pre-emptive. Having been banned from Wikipedia for alleged "harassment" myself, I find it strange that there was been no resistance to my participation here while Vordrak was more or less banned on sight.

Disclosure: I become aware of this situation after receiving an Email from Vordrak. I haven't provided Vordrak with any information on Gooniepunk or Typhoon, although I did do some light research and saw Gooniepunk's LinkedIn profile before he deleted it (the deletion and its timing pretty much confirming that Gooniepunk is the guy in the profile). Vordrak doesn't seem to know much about Gooniepunk:

Gooniepunk’s college may be less impressed with him when they learn of his unjust online conduct. It is unfortunate that his exams are next week, but it is his choice of timing not mine.

If Vordrak saw the profile, he would've threatened to call Gooniepunk's employer rather than his college. The point being that I don't believe that Vordrak is as big as a threat as you made him out to be in the previous discussion. I don't believe that it was appropriate to ban Vordrak out of fear, and his complaints and concerns were pretty sound. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

He's an arsehole with threat incontinence. Everything about the tone of his email was thoroughly ban-worthy, even if his actual on-wiki conduct wasn't. Legal threats are bans. It's a simple as that. Queexchthonic murmurings 15:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't believe that RationalWiki should rob people of their options. Legal options are still valid options. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Banning someone from RW does not rob someone of any options, legal or otherwise. Queexchthonic murmurings 15:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
My mistake. What I should've said was RationalWiki shouldn't punish people for telling RationalWiki users that they have legal options to consider. Anyway, he was blocked before he sent the Email to Gerard. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Somebody's first response shouldn't be to escalate to legal threats and then "Can you give me info on these people".Keter (talk) 15:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
That was a response to Gooniepunk's first response. Vordrak has every right to be upset after being banned on sight by Gooniepunk. Cause and effect. You act, and there'll be consequences. Vordrak's actual first response was to approach RationalWiki. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
You should be mindful who you defend when legal threats are involved. RW has a very short fuse on that matter. (talk) 15:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Especially since this querulant loser already appears to be attempting to build himself a case to blackmail our users and staff with. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
  1. He was not banned on sight. He was banned after troublesome initial edits.
  2. Even if it was a response to being banned, it is not a reasonable response.
  3. Even if a thinly-veiled legal threat was a reasonable response, the thinly-veiled other threats are not and more than sufficient grounds for an indefinite ban.
  4. Those other threats are technically illegal and could (in theory) be pursued with a much greater chance of success than Vordrak's own purported action. It would be a waste of time for something so trivial, however, but he's on far shakier legal ground than he seems to think. Queexchthonic murmurings 16:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Vordrak can get fucked right along with the horse he rode in on. 1. Legal threats. (Fuck-off 1). 2. New Guy who's a friend of Vordrak discussing a dox of Goonie and reporting to his university over bullshit here. (Fuck-off 2). In short, Fuck off, both Vordrak and Michaeldsuarez. (Can't dox me cuz I use my real name. And I'm in early retirement so, no one to report me to, except my grandson who's busy with video games and Big Macs.) So, once again, fuck off.---Mona- (talk) 16:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Although we occasionally speak to each other via Email, Vordrak isn't exactly my "friend". We didn't even meet under pleasant circumstances. I had a beef with him over what he said about Shii in that dumb "Paedophiles of Wikipedia" article he's so proud of. I even wrote the Encyclopedia Dramatica article on him. We share an interest in exposing and frustrating online pedophiles, but that's pretty much all we have in common, and even then, we differ in targets and approaches. I'm merely advocating the application of justice here. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Ok, like this: "New Guy who's a friend fuckwitted associate of Vordrak discussing a dox of Goonie and reporting to his university over bullshit here. (Fuck-off 2). In short, Fuck off, both Vordrak and Michaeldsuarez."---Mona- (talk) 16:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
@Reverend Black Percy: I believe that the intention was to expose via a blog entry, not "blackmail". I'm pretty sure that he already made up his mind on whether to write a blog entry about RationalWiki when he sent me that message. He merely asked me for more stuff to use in the article, not information that he could leverage nefariously. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Let me just say with absolute clarity: allowing any user with standing legal threats against a wiki continue to act on that wiki is a bad idea, legally speaking. It raises all sorts of complexities to potential court cases if they should continue to interact with the users, no matter how legitimate their legal concerns are. Do not, under any circumstances, unban this individual until the ongoing legal considerations are resolved. Wikipedia has that as a hard-and-fast rule, and we really should too. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

This page should be archived. Nothing to see here.---Mona- (talk) 17:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Husky Harlot's behaviour[edit]

HH has "disengag[ed]". Kitsu, can you reciprocate? That's the fastest end to this mountain of a molehill. FuzzyCatPotato of the Crazed Cauldrons (talk/stalk) 04:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I will believe it when I see it. The user should be revoked of a sysop that was given as a result of their trolling. I also think Tielec should be reprimanded for giving it to them. Also, is there any justifiable reason this page was collapsed? As far as I can tell, the issue is not resolved, and simply ignoring her behavior will not mean it won't happen again. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 05:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
"Also, is there any justifiable reason this page was collapsed?" My guess? The Coop has been more active these past few weeks than any other time in recent memory, and much of that activity is at the intersection of "relatively new users" and "a hot-button issue that parts of the established community are perhaps fed up of," and therefore, yet another case involving those dynamics is proving tiresome. But that's just a guess. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 05:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
That's fair enough, but the thing is: This whole shitfest is FCP's responsibility. By refusing to take action, they're making the users have to deal with every bad faith shitflinger that FCP has sent our way. I don't think that's fair in the slightest, even if people are "tired of it". - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 05:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
This is not a coop case. Yes, it's annoying when one chooses a particular comment format consciously and another editor changes it. It's been done to me and it pisses me off. Mere adjusting the indentations of comments to separate them all, however, is no big deal. That's what *I did as referenced in Kitsunelaine's presentation of the HH coop case; I commonly do that and have heard no complaints. However, I don't know what kind formatting changes Kitsunelaine made to HH's comments. Anyway, I don't see coop material here. Other users, or a mod, can handle this dispute about formatting and the rest.---Mona- (talk) 06:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
All I did was remove an unnecessary cartridge return. The coop case is over A) Harlot's attitude towards me and B) Tielec giving Harlot a sysop as a reward for her behaviour towards me. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 06:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
The coop is not a venue for "attitude" infractions. And if you have an issue with Tielco, take it up with him. Why would he mop someone for bad behavior? That seems a bit of a stretch.---Mona- (talk) 06:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
http://puu.sh/lUOGY/befdee94a4.png This happened in the middle of HH screaming about how I was Ryulong and that I shouldn't fix bad formatting. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 06:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
"bad faith shitflinger that FCP has sent our way." I, too,think it was extremely poor judgment for FCP to do that. But that also is not a coop case. Perhaps the Saloon.---Mona- (talk) 06:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree, I just felt it was an in-context frustration to air. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 06:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Ok, the reason Tielco gave for mopping HH is dubious unless he was being ironic. Did you ask him? If he was serious the mop should be taken away from HH. I'm just not sure this is the place for that. Maybe it is.---Mona- (talk) 06:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I did, check the block log. He didn't respond. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 06:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
[EC] In case you care, HH has been here for about a year, while my Reddit posts were this week. Other shitflingers, maybe. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 06:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
It is my understanding that this behavior is not uncommon for them, and that they are only here to stir up shit surrounding this topic. Though I may be wrong. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 06:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I sysoped HH because you blocked them for a non-trivial period of time, and because they have been here for a significant period of time without causing any major issues. By the way, the next time you bring a coop case against someone it is considered polite to inform them on their talk page. Tielec01 (talk) 08:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Five minutes is a trivial amount of time if that person is engaged in a hostile edit war. Which they sought to continue, but I didn't rise to their bait. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 08:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Ok; who am I to argue with your extensive experience here. Tielec01 (talk) 08:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
You knew what you were doing, and your given reason in the sysop grant suggests as much. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 08:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The coop is not the place for a little tiff between two users. It really isn't. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 08:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, there were frivolous COOP cases recently and they inform newer users who may think their case is at least as legitimate. The escalation has of course certain reasons. — Aneris ✻ {talk/ideas} 10:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I propose this be closed now. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png Oh hai Anonymous user 11:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Request to be unbinned and resysoped[edit]

May I kindly request to have my current status of being binned and - contrary to an explicit coop case saying otherwise - in sysoprevoke overturned? By the way, there was a two week ban for something that was blatantly a misunderstanding of something I tried to say that came out wrong. If you want to know more about that, write me a message on my talk page. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Multiple people who otherwise frequently disagree have disciplined Avenger. He's been de-mopped and binned, as well as blocked, several times in his RW tenure. In the last few weeks both David Gerard and Paravant have binned Avenger. Yesterday Avenger reverted a huge chunk of text in an established article and in his edit summary gave the "reason": (The only solution I see for this page in the post-Mona future is restarting from scratch...) Paravant reverted him and he is in the bin. Again. He has requested that several people unbin him, to no avail. Even his pal Arisboch would not. I suspect he started this coop case in part so he can claim it is only "just" to let him out so he may "defend" himself.
If anything, the mob should consider doing a Ryulong to Avenger. But frankly, I think this case is not a case and should be archived. We are very tired of coop cases and drama. I know I am.---Mona- (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
That is insofar not true, as I in fact did parole him from the bin, but Paravant did bin him back.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but then you wouldn't do it again. You said he should wait for a few days. So, here he now is.---Mona- (talk) 20:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Can you promise not to edit war? Really deep down promise to not revert people like, ever? Period? And always go to the talk page? And not even a pretend "not really edit warring but obviously edit warring" thing? I'd consider unbinning you contingent on an agreement from you to never ever ever ever edit war. Hipocrite (talk) 20:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I considered that option, that is, making him pledge not to revert without taking it to the talk page first. But all that will do is turn tons of talk pages into huge arguments with demands for votes, arguments over what the vote was, when the voting ends, what the result is etc. Avenger is not reasonable and that could only be a huge mess full of drama.---Mona- (talk) 20:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
That's how we roll, Mona. Hipocrite (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Edit warring is not allowed to anyone, but pretty much everyone does it anyway.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


User:Typhoon | User talk | Contributions | Block | Block log | User rights management | Vandal brake | Vandal log


  1. For quite a while User:Typhoon tries to revert and undo everything I write on articles he monitors, and doesn't care whether it's sourced or useful or not. He does it out of principle and has admitted as much. I haven't bothered much about it and took it as useful documentation.
  2. He added my name to the Slymepit article. Again, I didn't do anything about it. I would have left that alone, but...
  3. Today he added in "Thunderf00t: A fallen star and Slymepit hero." right above my name and pushed it too far with that.
  4. I reverted that since this is a blatant falsehood and quite an extreme smear to first edit me in personally, then someone with whom I (and many others there) disagree with on the salient political points. You might think it's a harmless edit, by comparison, but it's still smearing and pushing things too far and the other things are anyway seen as Lulz by everyone of merit (it's a complete joke, hence neither I nor anyone attempted to do much about it, it's a good point-and-laugh article).
  5. Typhoon, as usual reverted everything, once again. This went back and forth like 2 times. I only did it because he put my skin into the game.
  6. I then changed strategy and removed my name from that article. I usually change strategy after a few attempts, and know by now how the wiki operates thanks to that (in a nuthshell, SJW bullies always have it their way, no matter how ludicrous). But I don't have to tolerate that other people can freely decide what I believe or not. I knew that the RationalWiki was Pharyngula-esque in many ways, but that you cross into Pharyngual style gang rape by abusing other people's user name is quite amazing to be honest. I haven't seen this in years.
  7. Typhoon, presumably, banned me or somehow rendered my account no longer usable. This is why I bring this up. Smearing, lying and then blocking/banning? Well, it's on record now at least.


The previous revoking and demopping also happened capriciously by random people. This is of course all merely my "persecution complex", since it is perfectly normal that...

  • ...four(!) or so sock puppet accounts are created to harass every new user. Happened to me. User:Eris, User:Ανερις (Aneris in Greek), User:Anerwax and User:SJW_army_spokesman, maybe more.
  • ...that rights are revoked and bans are made every time someone argues mostly on talk pages, but otherwise tries to do good stuff.
  • ...frivolous coop case made against new every new users, for little more than talk page argument. Dito.
  • ...extreme poisoning the well tactics. Usual SJW fare (of course a figment of everyone's imagination). Completely unfounded. Dito.
  • ...that user:space articles are delete-attempted by socks. Also happened to me.
  • ...that additions are reverted (by Typhoon, ofc) that cite truthfully what notable people say on some matters (e.g. Sokal on Postmodernism). Or Coyne/Pinker on the science denialist corner around PZM. Mr Gerard provided higher up support to him, against two other users in the former case. I have no business with David, except that I know that he's a hordelet (self-styled name of PZ's now defunct gang) and that he knows that I'm on the Slymepit (but joined only in 2013) and we are supposed to be opponents for that reason, but that's not how I see it. But of course I find his protection of SJWs and their bully tactics as what I'd expect.
  • One user contact me via email, but didn't write anything what he wanted. I found that one odd, and given the ample context here, see this as a pretext to get my mail address for possible shenanigans. I also want that on record, just in case. I stress that I my impression might be unfounded. It remains odd. Why would you write someone a mail when you have no concern or reason?

My Crimes[edit]

I'm deemed persona non grata for the SP reason, and the reason that I strongly dislike SJWs (which is the same reason). None of which was kept hidden. This amounted to nothing at first, but of course SJWs quickly used their harassment tactics mentioned above, which was denied by other users. I then started to create "SJWs in the media" in my user-space to inform and combat the denialism around the matter (which the one sock attempted to have deleted).

I'm also guilty of arguing on some talk pages with either Mona (SJW denialist and supporter of them) or Ryolong (hardcore ED-noted SJW and My Little Pony fanatic). I have not messed with controversial articles to any notable degree (or not at all) and typically announced my points on talk pages. As one should, allegedly. The exception was probably Coyne/Pinker arguments against the Science Denialists on the EvoPsych matter, but that case was completely sourced and completely fell into the structure of the article, so I deemed this legit. It's still legit, but it admittedly didn't make Lord Peezus, Pope of Atheism, look that good which I gather is unacceptable here, especially for Mr Gerard. It was anyway reverted by Typhoon shortly afterwards at first, of course, then nixed by Mr Gerard. No edit warring occured. I didn't enter any edit wars since I learned it's used as a trolling trick, but I don't tolerate mainspace article smearing of me and I believe even on your worst of days you won't let that one fly. To your credit, the user_space article deletion attempt went nowhere.

I put by far my most mainspace work into metaphor, prototype theory and fallacies (or originally no platforming), made a couple of minor additions, such things as corrections of books for Pinker, updating Professor Ceiling Cat to Professor Ceiling Cat Emeritus etc. I also asked what to do in case of drama, how to behave properly (how do you expect one handles the situation), and of course no answer was given, because this situation is -- known for ages -- used as a tactic to police a community to push a certain POV, but without admitting that it is happening. The best suggestion came from Mona who I understood to say that I have to tolerate everything and edit articles in the forgotten corners nobody cares about. A different standard is of course used for SJWs who "own" articles and can pretty much invent anything they want, with support from the higher ups.

That's your case. Let's see what you do. I use this sock account only to resolve this banning issue and won't do anything else with it. You either restore "Aneris" or you don't, and independent of that, you either do something about Typhoon, and the socks or you don't. And while you are at it, you can also explain what you expect people to do who don't toe the SJW party line you allegedly don't maintain (but which you evidently do). If you were really honest about "constructive" approaches, you'd write an essay or guide or something what users can and cannot do. The normal workings of a wiki are, with SPOV/snark and all that granted, however, obviously broken in this regard. It simply doesn't work anymore. Why don't you add "social justice" in your mission statement on your main page, for example?

I'd also welcome a SJ source that shows what's the latest in Critical Race Theory and other alternate theories that you support anyway. I'm also curious how a RationalWiki "other ways of knowing" or "Lived Experience" article would look like. I'd love that and assist in bringing you sources and people to look into. An ardent supporter of this can write it as they please, no intervention from me at all (evidence. the Slymepit article I left alone for ages as long my skin wasn't in the game and Typhoon didn't push it too far). You see, I don't need to have it my way. It works either way, either we all see the real POV more clearly, which this case helped a lot, or maybe you come to the conclusion that you want to do something about this nonsense — then even better.

Cheers, — Aneris (talk), 22:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

NOTE: This was posted by account Aneris23, not Aneris. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 22:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)




Please note that: [1] Whichever option reaches a plurality is the winning option; if a sanction does not reach a plurality, votes for a sanction will count as votes for a warning. [2] Votes are either for or against an option. [3] Votes should not be considered final until at least 24 hours after coop begins.

For the sanction[edit]

  1. None

For a warning[edit]

  1. None

For no action[edit]

  1. No action. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 22:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. There's no love lost between me and Typhoon, and he is obnoxious about reverting those he's taken a dislike to. But this is not a coop case and should be archived immediately. Typhoon hasn't done anything that egregious and I'm so damn sick of people cooping at the drop of the fucking hat.---Mona- (talk) 23:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
    ---That was new to me that someone can just ban someone else, "just so". What's the point of COOP at all, when one user can just nuke the other. Why settle matters with Mods at all then? Next time you are in an argument or edit war, just ban them and you're good? That's kind of interesting. I honestly didn't know that. Aneris23 (talk) 23:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
  3. Typhoon has only blocked Aneris for a total of 3 seconds. I reverted the adding of his name to Slymepit. We have no reason to believe Typhoon created those socks. I will archive this. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 23:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


I've looked through the logs and didn't see Typhoon doing anything with Aneris' account. Did I miss something or is Aneris just making this all up? (talk) 23:26, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, he's imagining things. This looks like a waste of everybody's time & I advise anyone against bothering to "vote" on anything so vague & unsubstantiated. Unless Aneris can cite specific abuses I say we fast-archive this pointless heap of crap. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
It looks like Aneris, Arcane and Seriously have all been banned in a way that doesn't show up in the logs... all complaining they were suddenly logged out and login and reset password don't work. Concurrent with the blanking of the GG talk pages. Spooky. – Sarah (HH) 23:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Indeed and it happen exactly when that edit warring went on. I have no idea how it supposed to look like or where I can check my status. Interesting that it happened before. Aneris23 (talk)
I suggest you contact David Gerard about it. He archived those talk pages with an edit comment about BLP issues, and (as the main user with server access) it's possible he could have locked or reset your login. It's unclear why you're attributing it to Typhoon instead. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I doubt DG would do something like this, it would be as antithetical as it gets to RW. Tielec01 (talk) 23:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
It wouldn't be the first time a RMF board member takes unilateral action to address a legal issue (if that's what happened & if that's what it is) but they do usually post something to explain their actions. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

What's causing issues with the Aneris, Arcane and Seriously accounts?[edit]

Here's the status.

  1. I found myself suddenly logged out.
  2. Could not log in.
  3. Wrote COOP case.
  4. Learned that the ban lasted allegedly only seconds, ok, so I just checked again...
  5. Wants password, claims my PW is incorrect (this is impossible, but okay)...
  6. Clicked the provided option to reset PW. Not working, claims: "There is no email address recorded for user "Aneris". This is false. Recall that I wrote above that I confirmed my mail just days ago when a certain user wanted to contact me, and that this user didn't have any point or concern to make once we were connected? Interesting, isn't it? I'm not naming names just yet, maybe this is just a coincident, but it's not one of the usual suspects.
  7. Therefore, Aneris seems shadow-deleted. Quite amazing that denialist mona still doesn't see a problem, four sock accounts and harassment later, and an apparent shadow delete that bypasses the board. Aneris23 (talk) 23:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Seriously: [19]
Arcane: GethN7 on Reddit – Sarah (HH) 01:02, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The answer![edit]

  • Aneris forgot his password and got caught in an autoblock - also, there's totally an email registered to his account.
  • Seriously forgot his password.
  • No evidence has been presented about Arcane.

Hope that helps! Hipocrite (talk) 00:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

3 users are spontaneously logged out, misremember their passwords and are unable to use password reset despite confirmed emails? Seems unlikely. – Sarah (HH) 00:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
"Is such a thing even possible?" - David Gerard (talk) 01:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Assumes facts ("spontaneously logged out") not in evidence. No evidence the other two users were unable to use password reset. No evidence that the third user even has a problem. Facts are tricky things for you, aren't they? Do you get confused a lot walking around? Hipocrite (talk) 01:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Assumes likely behavior. Unless you think it's more likely they log out after every visit. Uh, both links above show them saying they're not getting the password reset email. Why the personal insults? – Sarah (HH) 01:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Because I think your playing fast and loose with the facts demands personal insults, at this point. I see only one person saying they aren't getting a password reset email. Show me two. There are lots of reasons people get logged out - login cookies here, for example, expire. Hipocrite (talk) 01:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
And, the first person has now explained why they couldn't get a password reset email: "I tried to recover my password, and I got a message saying my IP was blocked and that feature was disabled to prevent abuse." IE: caught in the autoblock. In summary, Gators are technologically incompetent conspiracy theorists, news at 11. Hipocrite (talk) 01:18, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
The pro-GG are not my favorite crowd either, but that's gratuitously insulting crap, Hipocrite.---Mona- (talk) 01:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Truth hurts. Hipocrite (talk) 01:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
See the big letters at the top of the page that say "What's causing issues with the Aneris, Arcane and Seriously accounts?" Scroll down from there to the bolded names "Seriously" and "Arcane" - you'll see a link to the right of each of them. Click those links and you'll see both of them complaining the password reset email isn't working. I hope for the sake of your users you don't work in any tech capacity. Aneris, have you tried unplugging your computer, waiting 30 seconds, then plugging it back in? LOL – Sarah (HH) 01:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

More random discussions[edit]

See above. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Aneris, you are unhinged. WTF is this: "denialist mona"? pffft. No, don't answer. Just shut this coop case down and let's move on.---Mona- (talk) 00:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
I think Aneris is confused. All he knows is he can't log in or reset his password. The same thing happened to Arcane and Seriously. Something definitely happened here that warrants addressing before we shut it down. – Sarah (HH) 00:16, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
"The same thing happened to Arcane and Seriously." Source? Hipocrite (talk) 00:34, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Source for Seriously [20], Arcane posted to WikiInAction, you can see it there. – Sarah (HH) 00:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
That source explains itself - he forgot his pasword. Shockingly enough, that entirely explains Aneris' problem as well (that and an autoblock). Perhaps the gator hordes are having a hard time remembering their passwords? Hipocrite (talk) 00:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Simplest explanation. Everyone makes mistakes sometimes. Make a new account and write the password down...Tielec01 (talk) 00:56, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Dear person who alleges they are Aneris: Please confirm you are Aneris by using another, already existent account to confirm your ID. Hipocrite (talk) 00:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


I've looked through the logs and didn't see Typhoon doing anything with Aneris' account. Did I miss something or is Aneris just making this all up? (talk) 23:26, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, he's imagining things. This looks like a waste of everybody's time & I advise anyone against bothering to "vote" on anything so vague & unsubstantiated. Unless Aneris can cite specific abuses I say we fast-archive this pointless heap of crap. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
It looks like Aneris, Arcane and Seriously have all been banned in a way that doesn't show up in the logs... all complaining they were suddenly logged out and login and reset password don't work. Concurrent with the blanking of the GG talk pages. Spooky. – Sarah (HH) 23:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Indeed and it happen exactly when that edit warring went on. I have no idea how it supposed to look like or where I can check my status. Interesting that it happened before. Aneris23 (talk)
I suggest you contact David Gerard about it. He archived those talk pages with an edit comment about BLP issues, and (as the main user with server access) it's possible he could have locked or reset your login. It's unclear why you're attributing it to Typhoon instead. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I doubt DG would do something like this, it would be as antithetical as it gets to RW. Tielec01 (talk) 23:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
It wouldn't be the first time a RMF board member takes unilateral action to address a legal issue (if that's what happened & if that's what it is) but they do usually post something to explain their actions. WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
I assumed Typhoon did something, since this was at that moment when he was reverting frantically. I had no issue with anyone else (except a minor argument with mona, as usual). I have no idea, since there is no feedback or anything that tells you what's going on. And since there were four sock puppets created to annoy me and more such things, I have good reason to assume schenanigans. Fiddling with the database is one plausible reason how it could happen, too. In that case, Mr Gerard certainly won't restore anything and given that I'm not the only one, its not exactly a situation the mods/community can simply overlook (well, you could, but that would speak volumes). Also, David is an old time Pharyngula community member, and I didn't like it there amidst the extreme hazing and rotten porcupine rape imagery. So I deserted and went to the jolly pirate ship / irreverend comedy board on the other side. Admittedly that happened much after the main kerfuffle, but for old timers like Mr Gerard, it's still Serious Business™. Typhoon also went around and claimed I was "doxing" David, which is of course complete and utter bollocks. The foundation for that wild claim was apparently a non-incident in 2013, where we wanted to know who made edits on the RW that showed the familiar ideological signature. I wrote then: "Edits were apparently done by a David Gerard..." and "He is described as an admin on RationalWiki, and comments under that name at FfTB. Have seen that name on WEIT, too.". That's about it. The context was interestingly the first strong opinion edits on Thunderf00t and doxxing his name. So there is also something going on there, but it could be co-incidence, but it's a strange one. It could be that the short-bans somehow fuck things up, and the reason is a combination of harmless and DB error. Maybe someone volunteers and tests it? But again, it's hardly "nothing" Aneris23 (talk) 00:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Confirm you are Aneris. Hipocrite (talk) 00:37, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Could probably replace with a bot, it just has to add random rants about SJWs, postmodernism and Rebecca Watson - David Gerard (talk) 00:39, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
I sysop-locked the GG-related talk pages and emailed the other two mods saying I was doing so and if either objected they should open 'em up. I think we'll be waiting to see how those pages go. Haven't done anything with anyone's accounts, and the only GG-related board-level discussion is about the weird legal threats - David Gerard (talk) 00:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Even when I was careful in my wording, I still want to apologize to you then. Sorry for bringing this up. So nobody knows what happened? It's weird. Aneris23 (talk) 01:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
You forgot your password and mistyped your username. Try resetting your password again. Hipocrite (talk) 01:15, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
The description above is copy & paste and my name is obviously typed correctly. Since I had mail contact with a mod days ago, I can both demonstrate that the account is mine, and that my mail was registered (and my writing is also obvious, I think). It's very strange here that apparently nobody wants to accept what's going on and for the record, I have zero to do with legal crap around GamerGate. I only argued a little on the talk pages. Aneris23 (talk) 01:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Screenshot of you trying and failing at password reset, please. Hipocrite (talk) 01:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
here you go, both screens. Yes, cookiee and that cannot be the problem since for one it's obviously working with this account, and I also degraded myself and used a mint explorer just to see what happens. Same result. Aneris23 (talk) 02:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
You realize, of course, than anyone can go to the same page and get a different result, right? Do you think anyone believes your bullshit now? Hipocrite (talk) 03:01, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Let's make clear that our only interactions have been unfriendly so far, so that the users know what's going on here. You asked my how it looks like, and that is how it looks like. The upper one throws you from a similar looking page back with the red box above attached. The same principle for the lower one. You edit your name, and it throws you back to the same page, with an error message. It's exactly as that. For the record, I got a mail in the meantime with a PW reset opportunity, and I tried that but it does the same behaviour (I'm in contact with other people already so don't expect me to keep you informed about the status, since you're obviously hostile). Aneris23 (talk) 03:06, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
I've given you a brief block in case you were blocked for whatever reason. Might help, might not. Tielec01 (talk) 01:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── alternatively, you could be caught by "Autoblock #79948." When you try to send the password reset, do you get "Autoblock #79948?" It might be targeting you by accident. Hipocrite (talk) 01:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I seem to be able to log in and have also criticized Ryulong's views. However, I find it highly unlikely that this would happen with three separate accounts simultaneously. It seem party or parties here are not being entirely honest. While I am obviously biased, it seems unlikely that this is a conspiracy of the three accounts unless a strong link could be established with the three (and it would be admittedly an elaborate conspiracy compared to one admin with power sickness making a surreptitious edit). For their part, the accounts claiming to be banned could help their case by posting screenshots or other evidence of their claims if they have not already (Edit: already done, nvm).--Banned main (talk) 02:52, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I found myself spontaneously logged out. Tried to log back in, my autofill password was incorrect. Very strange. Tried multiple times to be sure. Couldn't quite remember which password I used out of the five I always use. Tried them all. Incorrect. Small chance that I used an unusual password that I've forgotten, I guess, but it's my habit to use the same half-dozen passwords everywhere. Highly doubt it, but can't say to a moral certainty that it didn't happen. I clicked password reset. Got no email. MediaWiki email from when I first signed up still sitting in inbox. Still no email from password reset. I assumed somebody guessed my password and logged in, changed it and changed my recovery email too. I can privately provide the email I used to a moderator here on request, if that would help them in any way. Had to go change all my passwords on every other site I use. Was talking about /baphomet/ immediately prior to RW logging me out so maybe I got overly paranoid, lol. However, extremely intrigued to see similar shit happened to others, wtf is going on?

To be totally clear... - I was spontaneously logged out (at around the same time as two others, apparently) - My autofill password didn't work, despite multiple attempts. I use 'remember me' so I've never used the autofill password before but 'Seriously' is not a login I've used anywhere else. This is not a problem I've ever seen happen anywhere else, but it could conceivably be a quirk between my browser and RW. - It's possible I forgot the password I used when trying to enter it manually. I seriously doubt it but I can't say to a moral certainty I didn't. - My email was absolutely 100% no doubt entered correctly, I have my activation email still sitting in my inbox, so there's absolutely no chance I signed up with a typo'd email. There's either a problem sending out the reset or it's been nefariously changed. I don't see any alternatives here.

Seriously2 (talk) 06:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


As you can see, something worked. I was already (before this) in mail contact with one of the mods, so my mail clearly worked and I used it through RW, too. The admins reset the mail, or filled in my mail by hand or something like that. When done, my account was accessible through the "forgot password" option. I should note that it COULD be a problem for the other two that they never confirmed their mail, and I barely did (I did only days prior when someone wanted to contact me). The reason is that the Wiki never requires it and the mail that wants confirmation landed in the spam, so I overlooked it at first (but again, that was days ago and used since then). /thanks — Aneris ✻ {talk/ideas} 04:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

What about the grand wiki overlords silencing you?!?! - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 04:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Open Pedophile Shouniaisha[edit]

This case is about a decision I believe is unwise. The moderators of this site have allowed a user @Shouniaisha, who is by their own admission a pedophile, to participate in our site. His very first edit was announcing himself and his preferences 1. That does not sit right with me.

I know @Paravant told him he was okay as long as he does not advocate lowering the age of consent but I am not sure that is enough. Avalanches start with pebbles. What happens when there are five or ten of them. Will they all be banned then if they start to influence editorial direction? Is this really what we want to normalize? To condone?

I am opening a case and archiving it. RW can allow this, but it cannot pretend it did not know.

The case outcome I want is a ban for Shouniaisha and an express policy against self-identified pedohiles and hebephiles. DaFuzz (talk) 23:48, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Is this a coop case? Seems like a new account with an axe to grind? At any rate; to repeat what I've said elsewhere:
I would say that condemning people on what they are—opposed to their actions—is immoral. I don't see a reason for this case to be an exception. There is plenty of science to support that being a paedophile is not a choice (just like being gay isn't), and criminalizing being a paedophile isn't going to make those people magically disappear. Carpetsmoker (talk) 23:51, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
This is not a coop case. It is a new account who has already used the words "participate in our site." and "Is this really what we want to normalize?" (emphasis added)
Enough eyes are watching Shouniaisha to keep things on the up and up. I move for speedy closure of this non-coop. SmartFeller (talk) 00:04, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

User using the Japanese word for "pedophile" as their username[edit]

It has come to my attention that an user is using Shouniaisha as their username. "Shouniaisha" is apparently the Japanese word for "pedophile". I'm pretty sure that Wikipedia would consider this to be an inappropriate username. Does RationalWiki have a similar policy regarding usernames? Should RationalWiki allow users to use foreign (non-English) translations of the English word "pedophile" as their username? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

See archived coop case from a few days ago + the discussions on his talk page. Leave the guy alone unless he does anything. He hasn't even been onsite the last three weeks. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 14:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, now I see what's going on. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 15:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I just want to thank FuzzyCatPotato and CarpetSmoker for inviting those oh-so-pleasant gators over to have a little chat. How many long-term users have they scared off at this point? Don't dox me, bro! DontTazeMeBro (talk) 15:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your input new guy. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 15:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
I mean, I'd log in with my real account, but if I did that, there would be a Matthew Hopkins Witchfinder googlebomb linking my real name to every pedophile he could name. I guess rationalwiki is only for people who can create burners at will and people with nothing to lose in RL. Total ethics, bro! DontTazeMeBro (talk) 15:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
OK. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 15:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, the truth is, pedophile username, while dumb as hell, suggestive of a problem as a person, is not disrupting the wiki and its mission. We had to run off an otherwise legitimate user one time who was actually going around editing pedophilia related pages injecting a lot of "Maybe it's not so bad" waffling. I don't even remember who it was. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
I also believe that Japanese culture has somewhat different views on the subject, and we should be careful in jumping to conclusions in translating it 1-on-1 to "paedophilia". Translations are difficult, and while useful, lots of context and nuance is lost with Google Translate. Carpetsmoker (talk) 15:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
If a person created an account "FagFucker55", would it even be up for debate on the off chance they just hate smoking? CorruptUser (talk) 16:00, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
I get where you're coming from, but a name like that is creating a hostile environment for other users even if it was unintentional. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
I think, as Ikanreed suggests above, that the issue of concern here is (not exclusively) but atleast first and foremost: is this user pushing any type of paedo apologist agenda onto the actual page in any way, shape or form? If so, throw him and his edits to the dogs for all I care. If not, well, the discussion certainly continues. But the point that shouldn't be missed is that this isn't a discussion on our stance on paedo apology - we have zero tolerance for that. This is a discussion on if this japanese name is appropriate. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
No, it isn't any of those things. It's just concerns trolls popping out of the woodwork to JAQ & try to stir up trouble over things they read about us on Reddit, KiwiFarms, etc. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 16:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)