RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive42

Avenger being in the Bin

Hi. As you might recall (or not) I was binned by a user who is now not even active here any more. Besides the fact that no reason was ever given, there also seems to be no time frame or conditions for an eventual return to editing of my humble self. Hence this coop case. If I am let out of the bin for the duration of this coop case, I vow only to contribute to this coop case and nowhere else, until a conclusion is reached. If I am left in the bin until a decision is reached, so be it. As a further aside and in full knowledge of me asking for conditions making some people angry, I suggest that if a vote is to be held, the winning side should not have a plurality but rather a majority should agree on something, but that is of course for the mob to decide. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Why was this guy binned? Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 22:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Constant edit-warring over mostly small and pedantic changes relating to Israel and Palestine. To be fair, Mona does the same thing, and the main difference is that, in my opinion, Mona is more often (though hardly always) right.

I support unbinning and figuring out a method to deal with conflicts between Mona and Avenger. Carpetsmoker (talk) 22:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

"figuring out a method to deal with conflicts between Mona and Avenger" Lol, good luck with that. >.>
Also, I remember Gooniepunk ordaining Avenger shouldn't be let out of the bin, so maybe that's something that should be worked out first? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:31, 4 January 42016 AQD (UTC)

Linky link. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:35, 4 January 42016 AQD (UTC)

My humble self and Mona mostly disagree with regards to one specific topic. It would be a lot easier to contain said issue, if we could reduce the amount of times said topic is mentioned in mainspace on this wiki. But that is - of course - an aside. It might also be of relevance that Mona has on a certain occasion (forgot where) vowed to put me into the bin if I am let out, without really giving a clear reason. I think it is fair to say that there is not much love lost between the two of us. On the other hand, I would much like to edit like a normal user here (or get back sysop, you know... dreaming is not forbidden), to insert this as a ref into the Washington Redskins name controversy article... And other things. And I don't think the unilateral opinion of any one user (whatever their story) should dictate how the mob rules. Nor should a single simple user be able to simply "make" policy decisions. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

"reduce the amount of times said topic is mentioned in mainspace" Ah, Avenger shows his true colours. If he's gonna be going about his censorship-of-Israel-criticism shtick all over again, he can stay in the bin as far as I'm concerned. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:13, 5 January 42016 AQD (UTC)

@Avengerofthe BoN There might be some point in your plea if you hadn't brought that topic into many unrelated articles and talk pages.^{no, I can't be arsed to give links} Face it Avenger, you're a dead liability to any subject not wholeheartedly supporting Shin Bet. [humble!] Pippa (talk) 00:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I about threw up seeing Carpetsmoker assign me some blame in the Avenger matter. Paravant binned him tons of times. Gerard did last time. Paravant banned him for two weeks in November. Please ask Paravant and consult Avenger's banning and binning history.---Mona- (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Come on, no need for this sort of drama. You yourself admitted a while ago that you can be very abrasive and combative. I never claimed that Avenger is a model user, but then again, neither are you. If you would just try a little bit more to get along with Avenger and at least understand his views, rather than seeing him as some sort of enemy, there would be a lot less of a problem. Carpetsmoker (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

CS, I am aggressive and assertive. But I am not Avenger. I have never, and would never, revert 2800 characters of text in an established article, with an edit summary saying "This article is horrible an must be rewritten when Avenger leaves at some point in the future." That's what he did a month ago or so, only it said "Mona" instead of "Avenger." And it got him binned, yet again. He is utterly unreasonable, and not only on this issue. Paravant had to discipline on several other topics. ASK FUCKING PARAVANT! I am deeply, deeply offended at being placed in any parity with Avenger.---Mona- (talk) 00:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Relax :-) I never you're equally to blame. Your responses here are sort of a case-in-point on why things with Avenger tend to escalate... Carpetsmoker (talk) 00:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

CS: Your first response here strongly suggested I was equally to blame with Avenger. To say that set me off would be to understate. Is there no institutional memory here? To quote myself from the Zionism talk page: When I arrived in the middle of this past August the Zionism article was a shitty, unsourced mess. I began to add sourced claims only to find them immediately reverted, and was advised by three parties [Avenger in the lead] that unless I thought "Israel is great" my edits would not stand. They'd accept no compromises, and even a bifurcated article, to which I agreed, was rejected by the Zionists here; their position was that anything they did not like they would continually revert -- no matter how well-sourced. [I believe the Zionism page had been protected due to Avenger before I got here, when he was still a BoN.]

This was absolutely amazing, but I patiently persisted seeking any kind of compromise only to be continually rebuffed by these three people, at multiple articles: Nothing I stated no matter how credible the sources I had was permitted to stand. So, PacWalker, I and some others worked on an alternative Zionism article at his user page, and it was adopted almost in its entirety. It turned out, my view is more or less that of the majority here. Ever since that time, Avenger has been behaving like a petulant child at every article touching on the issue, and includes cracks about my having to leave the wiki in his edit summaries of tendentious edits and reverts.

But. Not only that issue. He drove Paravant batshit, and some others, with some obsession over proper English. he kept dragging his arguments from article talk pages to the Saloon, where Paravant and Gerard had to keep shutting him down. There's so much else, and I do not behave this way. I can be reasoned with, and admit it when I'm wrong -- I've done that on several occasions when the evidence warranted it. Avenger just cannot and does not do that. I don't know what more to say if you,CS, or anyone else, thinks it is fair or sensible to liken me to Avenger.---Mona- (talk) 01:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Understanding his views and seeing him as some sort of enemy are not mutually exclusive. More precisely, the former may indeed cause and substantiate the latter. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:23, 5 January 42016 AQD (UTC)

FCP, you cannot beleieve a word Avenger writes about this. I did vow to uphold a mod's binning of another sysop let him out. Goonie stepped in and binned Avenger until further notice.---Mona- (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)---Mona- (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

See Avenger's talk page for the two different user attempts to get Avenger to agree to behave himself as a condition for being unbinned. This he would not do.---Mona- (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I am fucking very sick, and taking codeine cough medicine. Trying to focus my thoughts to show all the stuff Avenger has done over the past many months is just more than I can do right now. If anyone can reach Paravant he'd be the one to ask. Ask yourselves: After all the drama of first the Ryu cooping, the Paravant resignation attendant to that, then the attack of all those assholes over the GG issue, do we want to release a huge source of disruption back onto this wiki? ---Mona- (talk) 00:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Avenger's response to the stuff above

(multiple edit conflicts)

Given that I can't respond immediately but have to wait half an hour between replies, I can't answer everybody shortly and individually. What the discussion at my talk page was actually about was whether I was willing to promise to not edit I/P for a couple of weeks. I gave said promise to Sorte Slyngel and Mona raised a whole stink (not unlike her present screaming) of it having to be at least six months. On that there was no conclusion reached before I logged off for the holidays (Yeah, I went home to see family for the holidays and was not on RW during that time, fuck me right?). As to the accusation that I want to censor criticism of Israel... Well, I won't dignify such hogwash with a response. As for Mona's bodily health: I wish her all the best and a speedy recovery. Respiratory illnesses are ugly business and I would not wish them on my worst enemy. Which to clarify Mona is not. For that, there are Nazis. As my political opinions have been asked about speculated about and put into doubt here as well as elsewhere, just let me say this: I am a leftist or at least I consider myself to be that. I am an antifascist and have the record of antifascist rally attendance to back this claim up (though by no means as often as I would like). All my further political views can be seen on my user page or asked of me directly. As it is quite late where I am sitting and I do have plans for tomorrow don't expect any response before at least tomorrow morning, though you might get one if something interesting can be found on the Interwebz. As a further aside: I think that Paravant at some point in time just came to detest me personally or something he thought I might represent. This is unfortunate because I think had we met under different circumstances I might have found him a pleasant enough fellow. Unfortunately this was not to be. Thus we have had debates that were far from civil even on issues such as urban planning or whether a talk page is the property of the user or the wiki and what exactly is meant by that. But that shall be it for now. Until tomorrow or half an hour later. Fare ye well! Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

You determine who you are, not them. I recommend to not accept this abuse, but if you want to be popular, you just ignore it. Explain only to thirds (others, readers, lurkers etc) if you feel like it, but never answer the thoughtpolice. I know nothing about your case or your argument with mona. But having an argument with her is not unusual, either. The RW should perhaps adopt multiple viewpoints, nuance, Socratic Method and even contradictory assessments, if sourced. It should empower readers, not preach them Approved Freethought™. Israel and Palestine is especially a Tarot-like situation, where everyone sees what they want to see in a eclectic selection of cards that are on the table. Reverts are nothing but users fighting over which cards should be presented. I maintain that if it is indeed an established card (a fact), it should be on the table, regardless of whether it neatly tells a story. The facts should lead, not the narrative. ~ Aneris 02:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

That's kind of exactly the issue with Avenger (well, one of the issues): he's intent on whitewashing or censoring facts that inconvenience his narrative. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 02:21, 5 January 42016 AQD (UTC)

"The facts should lead, not the narrative." Sing it brother, and I'll turn the pages. Avenger doesn't like facts vis-a-vis the I-P area. When some of us repaired to another editor's talk page to draft a very well sourced Zionism article which we said we'd eventually present to the mob for judgment as to its accuracy and assessment of the references, this was Avenger's reply in relevant part: Truth is not determined in a court of law. Twelves gals and blokes who know jack shit about something are not magically knowledgeable if they heard the drivel and legal maneuvering of "both sides". More often thane not there is more thaen one side. And almost always, the truth resists simplicity.. Because all he has is a narrative; he detests the facts I and ChrisAmiss, and others document. Our article was adopted, and then improved upon even more. Avenger cannot accept this.

Moreover, while I find your extreme positions on "SJWs" and all that, well, extreme, you surely noticed that when you have had the facts on your side, and I saw that, I immediately conceded it and made the proper correction myself, e.g. the Sokal article. I am like that on every issue where it is resolvable by documented fact. Also, you inanely think I'm an "SJW," which is really hilarious -- take a look at my edit at the Satanic ritual abuse page. I'm a civil libertarian, and oppose any ism that gets in the way of civil liberties, including any attempts to censor speech.---Mona- (talk) 02:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe you are a SJW, and hardly ever had that impression. More a denialist who is somehow invested in actively ignoring the thing away. I can't fault you, since it's mostly not documented here and it's overall like wrestling with an electric-eel. Everything is a hassle, even the language trying to document the thing is undermined, denied and obscured. You call my views "extreme". But where to start? Think about it: how does an article with snark and criticism on Milo writes itself? And what about Sarah Butts? Both are notable, but one is a jerk with dubious political views, while the other is a neo-nazi paedophile "edgelord". We both know how compiling such articles would look like in each case: a breeze in one case, halfway accurate, and detailling what disagreeable thing he tweeted on Wednesday 5:21pm. The other would either never materialize and if it does, would be an apologist masterpiece comparable to Mother Teresa, bloodsucking Ghoul of Calcutta caring and loving saint. You know it's true, and I know you know. That puts "extreme" in context. How about Milo versus Amanda Marcotte, which article exist and what would it contain? And so forth. You also have no idea whatsoever about what's called "Silent Evidence". It's easy to say something is "extreme" when you think we talk about a few missing bits here and there. You have no idea. I can randomly poke into anything. How about Dr. Richard Carrier. His article could outsnark any other just from his recent exploits. Don't get me started on the more "serious" things. You live in Bizarro Universe, basically, where Richard Dawkins somehow took interest in Rebecca Watson's offhand remarks in some old video and attacked her like a meanie, somehow, because misogyny! It makes no sense whatsoever, but hey, you can look it up on the Rationa-- roflmao. It amazes me that people who obviously don't know most of the things and know very well that information is tightly controlled from a certain side still somehow believe they are well-informed and could hold themselves. Where was this ever the case? But this discussion can be continued on mona's talk page, if someone feels like it. ~ Aneris 17:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

"I can't fault you, since it's mostly not documented here" Aneris, I'm very amused you think I'm some sort of fresh-faced kid whose knowledge base is limited to this wiki. Sweetie, I was going through the PC wars of the late 80s and early 90s when you were prolly in diapers. I've also seen how the charge of being "PC" has been hijacked to include anything progressive and opposition to actually racist, homophobic and sexist positions. Amanda Marcotte is a bitch -- (Yes, I know many think this word is sexist. I don't. I call men "pricks" and "dicks," so get over it.) -- in many ways, but speaks for very few and certainly not for me. As for Sarah and the Edgelord thing, that was 10 fucking years ago. There's no way in hell I'd want to be held liable for everything I wrote when I was 20. Milo, on the other hand, is an ongoing purveyor of idiocy and asshattery. Finally, about the huge SJW thing at your user page, I've already read many of the articles you link; some are more persuasive than others, but none mean what you think they do.---Mona- (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

That's not entirely correct. “10 fucking years ago” (if true) merely means that the documentation of her views are that old. It's unlikely that she stopped thinking that way a second after the material was sent into the aether. Dismissing the criticism as if it never happened is also dubious, since Sarah Butts herself never apologized or “owned” her “edgelord” period fully, and instead produced a smear and hit piece designed to attack critics at Medium, while somewhat conceding that the logs and documentation was authentic. Again, I find this typical. Apologists likewise never accepted it fully, but instead used the situation as a catalyst to again get at critics. There is no introspection whatsoever. People fervently defend her anyway, whether the accusations were true, false, confirmed, not confirmed or whatever. It makes no difference whatsoever. That should make you think. Again, this is typical. I can name you several of similar cases. There are always “reasons”. ✻ ✻ ✻ ✻ ✻ Mysteriously, no such reasons exist when it comes to decade-old comments made by “SJ-disliked” people. And who have fully, and without waffling, apologized at length. Here, Greta Christina, Ed Brayton, many other bloggers and countless commenters agree that such things should be kept in memory and become a permament feature, like a Scarlet Letter (of course by also pretending the apologies never happened). Other places, where I'm active (e.g. Slymepit) are obviously irreverent and satirical, yet here again a fictional alternate version is presented, too. As noted before, you know not enough to see the double standards. ✻ ✻ ✻ ✻ ✻ Finally, we are asked that Sarah Butts really was “just” an edgelord. How do we know this? Again, extreme double standards. I can be moderately critical of Sarkeesian, even agree with the general tenor that video games have a sexist legacy, and I'm immediately a “Gator” and in league with 48chan, doxxing and whatnot because I think her particular take is hogwash. Here it's not even believed what people themselves say about themselves. That's questioned all the time. Again, look at personalities that are “SJ-disliked”, quick example “Sargon likes to call himself a liberal, specifically a 'classical liberal,' and at first glance, you'd be forgiven for confusing him as one”. But here we have Sarah Butts and despite facist and paedophile activity online, we have to first downgrade that to “merely” provocative “edgelord” behaviour, and then believe that it's not meant in any way seriously and now anyway in the distant past. I have no worries, however, about this situation. The double standards are such extreme that everyone who hasn't had a sip from the SJ-Kool-Aid will quickly and at a glance see what's going on, and more facts and more discussion about it will make this even more obvious. Reality will always come back to bite you. EDIT: I mona's page to respond to her is not editable. ~ Aneris 17:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Nothing you write changes that the documentation only supports 10-yr-old bullshit on a notoriously bullshit-spewing forum. Your speculation is irrelevant. The sysop-lock on my talk page is prolly no longer necessary. I'll go remove it.---Mona- (talk) 17:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

My take

Given my views on politics at RationalWiki, I still think the best, easiest, and most permanent solution to this problem would be to fire up the flamethrowers and expunge all mention of IP from the wiki. Given that RW doesn't appear to be in a flammable mood:

Avenger and Mona both edit war. Perhaps one more so than the other, perhaps one with better sources. I don't care. Solution:

1. Stop calling each other names. Stop talking about each other. Stop calling each other liars and SJWs and narrative-driven and whatever the insult du jour is. Only talk about facts and the sourcing of facts -- you don't need to drag them through the mud, just their shitty idea! I don't know how to enforce this, because I cannot stalk all your comments at this time, but you guys should try this sometime.
2. WP:3RR. Whoever violates first gets a bin for a day. Don't make this a wikilawyering issue (usually that's my domain) or a way to game the system, but do tell me if there's a violation.
3. I'd like there to be a single article, Israel-Palestine conflict or something, with all IP-related material. Please, feel free to move IP-related material (eg, the ballooning section at Apartheid) back to the IP article and put {{main|Israel-Palestine conflict}} and a brief, NPOV summary. Spillover is gross.
   1. And if everyone could stop mentioning IP anywhere but that article, that'd be swell. Movenger's Law shouldn't be a thing.

The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 02:49, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps Avenger and Mona could agree on a person (or several people) who they both consider to be fairly neutral and reasonable to arbitrate in disputes, and agree to accept this person's arbitration without any continued edit warring? Carpetsmoker (talk) 02:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

This is a 'solution' looking for a problem. So far, keeping Avenger in the bin has been very effective at preventing conflict and other disruption. Censoring missional topics because they're tainted by politics is dumb. Censoring missional topics because you don't like to see them pop up across the wiki is dumb. Putting everything Isreal-Palestine-related in one spot would result in a page bigger than all three GG-related pages combined (so even logistically speaking it's dumb). And certainly, telling RW-users to stop saying bad things about each other is exceedingly futile (and also pretty authoritarian and patronizing). Have you even seriously thought about these things? I'd almost invoke Poe's Law here. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 03:01, 5 January 42016 AQD (UTC)

Putting everything Isreal-Palestine-related in one spot would result in a page bigger than all three GG-related pages combined.

^{[citation needed]}; and the resulting decrease in drama and spillover is almost surely worth it; and perhaps a big page would be better at proving our point (whichever side the article supports now), no?

telling RW-users to stop saying bad things about each other is exceedingly futile (and also pretty authoritarian and patronizing)

fffs, look at all the time Mona and Avenger spend attacking each other instead of their ideas. It's not a mod-edict, it's asking for efficient discourse. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 03:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘FCP, No citation is needed. I-P is a hot button topic and impinges on our articles on : New Atheists, Muslims, Apartheid, Jeremy Corbyn, elections all over, Muslims we have articles on, Islamophobia, and other political activists, including Black Lives Matter. The list is very long.---Mona- (talk) 03:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

A decrease in drama? There's basically no drama about this currently. Even if there was, what makes you think putting everything in one article would reduce drama? Did there only being one GG-article stop the wiki from regularly turning into GGWiki back in the day? Did the two extra pages increase the drama at all? Speaking of back in the day, at the height of the whole I-P debacle the dispute was mostly about 1 article: Zionism. And spillover? How is that an issue? If, say, a country has sexist policies, why should all content relating to that be slashed and cramped into one huge sexism article? Why would treating those policies on the page itself be any problem? Why would there be any difference if instead of sexism it's about discrimination against/oppression of Palestinians? This is just part of your secret scheme to merge all of RW into one page isn't it. >.> 142.124.55.236 (talk) 03:35, 5 January 42016 AQD (UTC)

If Avenger is to be removed from the bin (not something I would necessarily agree with) then Carpetsmoker's idea is a good one.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 03:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it would be appropriate for you as a moderator FCP to fully understand why Avenger was binned in the first place by Paravant (if memory serves, there is a huge amount of material relating to this on Paravant's archived talk pages), and then later by Goonie, and then also by David I think. Perhaps David could explain directly to you. My main observation is that RW has been a much more pleasant place since he was binned.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 03:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

While that may be true, RW need not be pleasant to be effective. The presence of dissent will generally be unpleasant, but it also necessary. Tielec01 (talk)

^ This. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 03:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Dissent is excellent. Dissent is productive and intellectually stimulating. Avenger is not doing dissent. He's doing disruption.---Mona- (talk) 03:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Dissent can (and should) be polite and well argued. It should not involve endless edit warring and name calling. Bit of an eye opener for some RW editors, I know.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 03:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Which is why I think RW may need some of the [norms / rules / whatever] of WP (see 3RR) and the page-change. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 03:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I do not support expunging all the I-P articles. That would include lots and lots of them, including many on New Atheists. Every time we've had a vote on edits Avenger has lost. Yet he continues with edits and reverts he knows there is not support for. Moreover, as TRWP says, a simple check of Paravant's dealing with Avenger will show I-P has not been the only problem where he is concerned. If FCP's Carpetsmoker's proposal for some "neutral moderator" were adopted, Avenger would spend tons of time making ghastly, fact-free edits to keep me/us consumed with dispute resolution. My position on these issues is more or less that of the majority here; I don't have this intractable problem with any user other than Avenger; he has had it on other issues, something to do with English being one of them.

Please, please do not do what you propose, FCP. There are other topics I have been editing here, and I wish to continue doing that. Giving Avenger license to recommence shit-stirring with the I-P articles will only cause tons more drama and energy consumption for many people. What does that do for this wiki?

I very seldom engage Avenger, altho obviously I must if I have to "reason" with him regarding his tendentious edits. I'm not calling him names. On a few occasions I have honestly stated I find him to be an absolutely deluded and irrational crank, which is my actual opinion, but that is very seldom -- I usually ignore him and do not engage him. For the most part he is the one who has followed me around demanding *I engage *him -- Paravant blocked him for a time when he claimed the only Jews I liked were dead ones. (I believe that before I arrived, Paravant also ordered Avenger to stop calling everyone who disagreed with him an antisemite.)

This is just awful to me, being paired with Avenger, as if I have somehow contributed to the disruption. All I've done is push edits the majority agrees with and refuse to avoid doing that because it sends Avenger into shit-fest mode. Do not allow him a "heckler's veto" over editing here.---Mona- (talk) 03:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Lol, I'm not imposing anything -- I wish that the IP issue (which is known to be an intractable neverending troll-gathering adhominem-laden shitheaping discussion) wasn't here at all, but that's a minority view. I'd rather not touch this issue, since I didn't follow it when Paravant was handling it. Given that quite a few of the people here involved have a decent shot at being moderators, I'm going to let this issue lie.

That said, I still think the 3RR might be useful in general. RW doesn't handle edit wars well. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 16:39, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

"Problematic editor wants out of the bin" -> "scour anything political from RW, even if it's clearly missional". This remains a terrible idea. (I think the only reason it got as much traction as it did was that you didn't set out what you really meant, and so you got people who hated liberals voting for scouring I-P.) - David Gerard (talk) 10:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Possible solution: vandal brake only for some topics?

I think most people agree that Avenger's problems are only related to the I/P conflict, and that his behaviour outside of that is okay (it is in my experience anyway).

A possible compromise would be a vandal brake on Zionism, Israel, and some other pages, but allow free editing on all other pages. Would this be a good solution?

If someone sends me the source code for the Vandal Brake extension I'll program an update to make this possible. Carpetsmoker (talk) 04:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Just for the record, he has been a muppet in other areas too. Notably editing articles to change English to American English despite being told not to and being pointed to policy page. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 04:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, we're all a bit of a muppet on occasion ;-) At any rate, I've seen that happen in a case where it was mixed British/American; never outright changing an entire page as such (or, for that matter, edit war over it). Unless I've blatantly missed something, there have never been any serious problems outside of I/P. Carpetsmoker (talk) 04:39, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Not a biggie, but just for the record, this which was blatant edit-warring and changing the spelling conventions in a whole article. That's one I was involved in as I wrote the article from scratch. There have been other instances also.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 04:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

There are probably several dozen articles that would have to be included, and others added as time goes on. Including one I had planned to get to in a month or so after Targeted Individuals would be done. (Also, he kept dragging disagreements to the Saloon and trying to generate consensus he could then claim outside of the article's talk pages.) And, when he hasn't been able to get his way, he's established new articles that he then sought to link-embed in the one's he couldn't edit as he wanted to. Paravant had to delete at least one of those articles. I wasn't involved in the English wars, but I recall Paravant being beside himself over that as well.---Mona- (talk) 04:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, so we'll have a list of 20 pages. And yeah, it may not work. If he abuses this chance and trust he can very quickly find himself vandal binned again, and perhaps even blocked outright. I think it's worth a try, at any rate. Carpetsmoker (talk) 05:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

If there's a way to do it by articles listed in a number of categories that might be the way to go.---Mona- (talk) 05:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that could probably be done. But (and this is a big but), it all depends here on 1) David sending me the actual code, and 2) Installing the updated version... David is not exactly known for speedy responses to technical requests, but if the mob votes this way, I hope some action is taken on his part (it's a 5-minute job in total). Carpetsmoker (talk) 05:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

(Re: TheroadtoWiganPier) Okay, that was just stupid (on Avenger's part). Anyone who starts an edit war on British/American spelling without a very good reason should just be automatically blocked for a day. It's stupid and disrespectful of other people's work. Carpetsmoker (talk) 05:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Explaining a controversial statement

(several edit conflicts)

Now Mona has quoted me with saying about her "the only Jews [she] like[s] are dead ones". That is not accurate and is not what I said or meant ever. I shall try to explain it here (if Arisboch were still here, he could explain it better, I guess). There is a quote floating around some German speaking circles that basically says "Sure there are lots and lots of remembrance and monuments and stuff for dead Jews. But the living Jews? Nobody gives a crap about them". And at least looking at Germany this is true. You will find mention of Jews or Judaism almost always with regards to 1945 or before. I.e. with regards to dead Jews and in some isolated cases the few who survived the Nazi murdering. But I am unaware of any school class or university course or anything - despite them dealing extensively with the topic of dead Jews - ever going to an honest to god synagogue with actual living Jews in it that are actually - you know - having a service or something of the sort. Or talking to a Rabbi. Or anything about living Jews. And in a sense this also applies to other fields. There is not a German with a functioning political brain who doesn't express sympathy with the dead Jews of 1933-1945 (and the few who got away). But getting sympathy for the living Jews of today? That's much harder. Quite recently a poll found troubling results (link in German) regarding ongoing Antisemitism in Germany. Of course part of the problem is that there are so few left. In Germany right now there are more Jehova's witnesses thaen there are living Jews. I know of one person in my wider social circle who is a Jehova's witness. I know no German Jews personally as in face to face met him/her. And I think the attitude of the German political left towards Israel may in part be explained by that. Or not. Or it may be explained by the old saying "The Germans won't ever forgive the Jews for Auschwitz" (sic!). Or not. What do I know? The only thing I know is: The whole issue is controversial and if one side has a preconceived notion of what I am saying, it is easy to misunderstand me. And there does not even have to be malice involved for that. I am much too tired to write anything besides what stands here right now. Just consider this: Disagreements are not a bad thing. Passion is not a bad thing. Passionate disagreements are not a bad thing. And there will always be drama. Just google Rationalwiki (I recently did in my stupidity) and you will find that we are all some things I don't even want to understand. I just hope Mona can see past her negative attitude towards me and those that disagree with me on Zionism (which I am willing to debate on some talk page at some time, when it comes to the actual issues, but not here and not now) might wish to imagine me complexly. I know that far too often I am failing in that. Good night. And good luck. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 05:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

"That is not accurate and is not what I said or meant ever" Paravant found it outrageous, and, with no prompting from me, blocked you for two weeks (this was after a lot of binning, blocking and demands to ceases and desist this and that bullshit). David Gerard -- who is no fan of mine -- also binned you. As with Paravant, that was all his own initiative; I had not asked for any intervention. On this issue, above all others, you are beyond reason.---Mona- (talk) 05:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Paravant misunderstood me. I hope that what I wrote here clears up that misunderstanding. If you still misunderstand me, I am sorry for that. I still think it is quite a poignant and valid observation to make. I do understand how the misunderstood version of what I said (nota bene: something I never said) can be offensive, but I don't really understand how what I actually meant can be considered offensive. You may not agree with the statement or the sentiment. But that's another ballgame entirely... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

So back to the case at hand

It appears that some tempers have run high and we have once more drifted into a general debate on issues that may or may not be related. Interestingly enough, some people seem to wish to drag this whole video game thing into it on which I am decidedly ignorant because quite frankly: I don't care. Anyway. I think we should go back to actually debating my case and stop debating tangential points such as Mona locking her talk page or which UN resolution says what with regards to a supposed right of return of German refugees who were driven out of areas now belonging to Poland in 1945. It appears on the face of it to be a quite simple question: Should I be let out of the bin or given back sysop and if so which preconditions (be they technical, technological or promises on the part of any editor(s)) should be met if any? All other things that are not related to that may be quite interesting in and of themselves, but they are quite distracting from this discussion. As is the shrill and strident tone some have employed here. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Avenger is not in any way blocked, he can edit fine

(been away with labyrinthitis, so feel BLESSED that I'm spending this half-hour segment of screen time on you right now)

Right now, Avenger is in the bin. CONSEQUENCES:

• he can still edit
• he has to think hard before any edit he makes, and has to make it a good one
• he is very miffed that he can't edit-war
• the wiki works a whole lot better

Nobody above has said why these are bad things.

He is not in any way blocked, so it's an error to talk about this as if he is. He is concerned at being of low status on the wiki. Status concerns are real (and part of why we op by default, I think), but we need to weigh up against these the observed behavioural issues that got him mulitply binned in the past.

He does have to actually think about his edits. Not thinking about his edits was the problem in the first place, as he shat all over the place. There is excellent reason why he was binned by multiple mods in succession. Now it's much nicer and his contributions are way higher in value:edit ratio.

I strongly suggest leaving Avenger in the vandal bin, as it's not limiting his actual contribution and is working really well at not making the wiki a shithole - David Gerard (talk) 11:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, David. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 14:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

So black is white and white is black now?

In a way this reminds me of Stadionverbot (google it), which is imposed by individual soccer clubs (in many ways acting like private companies) on an individual and can result in a lifetime ban without any possibility of appeal nor any need to give a reason. A ban, mind you that is not only in force for the stadium of the issuing club, but all professional soccer games down to the third division and in many cases even those in other European countries. There is no way to appeal this, because juristically speaking, it is not a penalty for a crime at all. So the reason why you can't get your day in court is because of, not in spite of nulla poena sine lege. So I can't appeal being in the bin, because magically being in the bin is not a penalty at all. And if I were blocked without the possibility to edit my talk page (which Paravant saw fit to do once for two weeks), I could not appeal because I am fucking blocked without the ability to edit my talk page. So there is only one penalty in the whole catalog that can actually be appealed against: blocked with the ability to edit your talk page. But don't even go to "blocked and binned".... This is fucking ridiculous. I thought RW was better thaen that. I thought you were better thaen that, Mister Gerard. I am a leftist and a liberal and I am in favor of the continued existence of Israel precisely because of that. I am a leftist and an antifascist and hate Hamas precisely because of that. I know that an unfortunately high number of leftists are in favor of the Ayatollahs in Iran or of Hamas or Hezbollah or marching in Al Quds day rallies, but they don't define leftism. They don't own leftism. I think it was Max Horkheimer (but it may have been Adorno after all) who once said in so many words "The national liberation should not be mistaken for the individual liberation of the people comprising that nation". That is precisely my take. Nationalism is never a force for liberation. Be it the nationalism of rich and powerful countries or that of small and poor countries. I am in favor of the continued existence of the state of Israel, because history shows that threats of extermination against the Jewish people are hardly ever idle blatherings. And if people who openly call for the end of Israel get the bomb, that is fucking scary. Maybe this position is a minority view within what you and Mona think is leftism, but since when has leftism - any form of it - been about silencing the minority? Indeed, since when has liberalism been about that? The only thing calling itself leftist that ever did that was Leninism-Stalinism with its purges and kicking out of the party. So if I am an agent of Zionism, please let me at least have my day in court and don't claim there's no need to because I am not actually being punished! And finally: at what point did RW become a place where editing once every half hour is considered a blessing to the editor struck by it about which he just should stop whining and bitching? Unfortunately, there is no way to give negative votes, but if I could, Mister Gerard would get my wholehearted opposition in the current elections. Good day sir. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

But what about Israeli nationalism, Avenger? What about the minorities silenced by the Israeli government? What if the state proclaiming itself as a homeland for all Jews becomes an authoritarian dictatorship? What if it's too late; what if it already has? The freedom and security of a nation should not be mistaken for the freedom and security of the individuals that make up that nation's population, Avenger. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Close?

Can this trivial & time wasting non-coop case be closed now? Pippa (talk) 14:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Someone's been binned. How is this a non-coop? Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 17:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, this is totally appropriate for the coop.---Mona- (talk) 18:16, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't look very productive though. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

What exactly is the Bin for according to policy?

This discussion was moved here from RationalWiki:Saloon bar.

As you may have noticed, there is currently a case in the coop, where the binning of a certain user (namely me) is being discussed and David Gerard has expressed interesting views concerning the Bin and what it is for. Now I know many users want to avoid the drama that is usually contained in the Bin, but if I don't misunderstand the history purpose and culture of RW, this has possibly huge consequences outside the case at hand and as such, I thought it might be prudent to raise it here. And if Mona and/or David Gerard decide to remove this contribution to the Saloon Bar, it might in fact prove (part of) my point... Anyway, I hope I have not just wasted another half hour with a post that will be rev-deleted before anybody even gets a chance to see it. Oh and by the way, the Captcha was Coffee Mug.... Again.... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

You're talking about things in a roundabout way with a lot of rather vague inuendo. Can you please express in simple terms what you find controversial about David G's comment and what possibly huge consequences you're anticipating? I also suggest this thread be moved back to the Chicken Coop rather than forking the discussion across multiple pages. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, I can see why if Mona is going to protect the page at a mod level access. Granted it was removed quickly, but seems like CP level silencing. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Mona isn't a moderator & can't protect anything at moderator level. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know what ECW is on about. I'm a sysop, but not a mod -- nor do I wish to be mod and refused to run after someone nominated me.---Mona- (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Umm, I think ECW is referring to this:

18:34, 6 January 2016 -Mona- (Talk | contribs | block) changed protection level for "RationalWiki:Chicken coop"‎ ‎[move=moderator] (indefinite)

Typhoon (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

She removed editing protection (previously limited to autoconfirmed users) and left move protection in place, which was set at moderator level by David G. You then removed that protection. Log. The protection against moving the page should be there as it's a high use page with hundreds of archives, & some idiot did recently create a mess by renaming it to something stupid. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah, yeah...that's certainly not really what it looked like. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't know that move protection was needed here. Nevertheless I was merely pointing out was ECW was talking about. Typhoon (talk) 21:08, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

What's so funny about this is I didn't realize I'd done even that. No, I think I mistakenly removed protection of some sort from here right after I told Aneris (here in the coop) that I'd remove protection from my talk page since he said he was replying to me here instead of on my protected user talk page, where he preferred to reply. Which is what I intended to do, and just did. I can't imagine I have the power to undo a setting a mod made, can I? In any event, I didn't intend to!---Mona- (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

What Avenger is doing here is what he was binned for: attempting to get his way with as much headless chickenry as possible as fast as possible. And excellent evidence for why he is currently restricted to doing so at one edit per 30 min - David Gerard (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

ECW, what the fuck? Recently I protected nothing but my own user talk page. This should be moved to the coop.---Mona- (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

"What Avenger is doing here is what he was binned for:" Well, one of the things he was binned for. The reasons and causes have been legion.---Mona- (talk) 18:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict, again - this is another thing: Having to type long texts to make the half hour worthwhile increases the risk of edit conflicts)

See, this is exactly why David Gerard's view of the bin is problematic at best. Yes, I can still edit, but I can't immediately respond to things said (and given the rapid pace of many discussions here, that is a serious obstacle), nor can I clarify points that came out wrong or were misunderstood (which, if you recall correctly led to the block and thaen binning that started this whole mess, Paravant misunderstanding me). And furthermore I cannot copy edit. More often thaen not, I see mistakes in what I wrote only after I hit "save page" and thus would like to copy edit those mistakes, but as you can see in Hyperloop and Washington Redskins name controversy, two of the articles I created since being binned, I don't get around to do that while in the bin, because I usually have something more important to say within any half hour period. Also, as to the discussion above, I advise you to keep in mind, that I have already been binned for quite some time and there was never even a reason given. And Mona, locking your talk page is IIRC something that violates the same rule that Footnotes on talk pages are against. If that rule still applies, which I of course don't know... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Solution

• Okay, so you have identified some problem.
• The user in question wants to participate earnestly
• You are generally okay with him editing, so you claim.
• Imposing sanctions is done with a mouse-click. It's easy.

The obvious solution is to formulate what you expect in clear words, give a second chance and restore his rights. If THAT problem continues, you can always impose sanctions in no time. Maybe wait a few days until the new moderators are in place, and have one as a sort of mentor (keeping an eye on things for a while). Problem solved. ~ Aneris 18:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Uh-huh. The guy's on his 547th chance. The issue now is whether we need a permanent solution, and if so, what. I agree with David Gerard that keeping him in the bin is best, for all the reasons David set forth.---Mona- (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

If you don't like someone editing, ban them straight. If someone is on "probation", add a future date where their case is reviewed, say in a month. If you halfway want someone to contribute, allow them to contribute. ~ Aneris 18:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

He is half-way contributing. From the bin. Even from there, he just tried to spread more drama at the Saloon. Again. Anyway, I see no reason why the mob should be precluded from long-term staying in the bin, if that's what it wants.---Mona- (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

It is indeed interesting how in Mona's view, raising what I view as a drastic redefining of the bin and its uses in the Saloon Bar is somehow a punishable offense. It is quite clear what Mona would like: Me never writing anything on or about RW, Israel or anything ever again. Why this is, I quite frankly don't know, but that's the way it is. And thus it appears, everything I do is taken as yet more prove for her "case" against me. And of course there are people who dislike Mona yet agree with her on that point. Anyway, I would like to hear any of you actually explain what the problem is. If there is a general space to discuss everything (on WP I think it is called Village Pump) and someone raises something there, they are at the most politely informed to try their luck at some other place instead, but it is not seen as a bannable offense (the equivalent of the bin exists on no wiki I'd know of). And the interesting thing about my current bin is: There was an explicit coop case against it and my being banned or binned was never anything but the actions of a select few editors who had some sort of gripe with me. If I could at least be informed what apart from my view that Israel should exist is so offensive, I could at least try to understand. But I fear actually naming your gripes would weaken your position, wouldn't it? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:21, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

IIRC, your denial of any wrongdoing by Israel. I find it just as abhorrent as a certain someone's apologetics about the Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims. But this is not why you are in the naughty basket. No, it's the constant edit warring. Edit warring that was also partaken but said certain someone yet said person for some reason isn't also binned. So yeah there's probably some bias, but I'm not upset that you were being disciplined. CorruptUser (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

"No, it's the constant edit warring." But not just that. And his edits have frequently been grossly tendentious, as have been his edit summaries, e.g., deleting 2800 characters of text with the "explanation": "this article is awful and needs to be rewritten after Mona leaves in the future.") I am not, not by a longshot, the only person who has had to endlessly revert him.---Mona- (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

What we are *not* seeing

Avenger has not at all acknowledged that his behavior has been unacceptable and disruptive to the wiki. Rather, he's posting one plaintive lament after another about how Paravant misunderstood him; David Gerard is mean to him; stuff about me and my opinion of him; lengthy text about Israel, nationalism, and blah, blah, blah; other editors who just inexplicably have it in for him. His misbehavior has been set forth to him many times, but he doesn't accept that there is anything wrong with it, ever.

He's been binned, blocked and the cause of page protection more times than I can count -- including before I arrived here, when he was a BoN. But nothing is ever his fault. Given all of this, on what basis should he be allowed out of the bin?---Mona- (talk) 19:51, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

May the other side please state their case

Interestingly enough some users seem to want to keep me in the bin with a reason that basically amounts to "You know why, don't even ask". I would like them to state their "case" as it may be in words as clearly as possible. And thaen I can respond to actual accusations and not some nebolous accusations that never amount to anything besides an edit summary that was formulated a bit flippantly and a preference for American English (due to reasons that needn't be repeated here) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Amusingly, you have done that job yourself in the text you have just posted. Your complete and utter unwillingness to understand why you are in the bin and to post flippant remarks will only add fuel for those who wish you to stay there.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 23:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

So to summarize: I am in the bin for reasons I am unwilling to understand and when I ask as to why, I am only putting myself in deeper? I am sorry, but maybe it is because I am as you know exceedingly stupid, or maybe you have not explained yourself enough. I don't think I am the only one who does not understand why I am in the bin.... Especially currently, because those that binned me never gave any reason besides "you know why". I am sorry, I am not afraid to ask the stupid question: Why. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Unable. Unable to understand. CorruptUser (talk) 00:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

You've made a lot of mean and sarcastic comments towards some users. Here are some that demonstrate that attitude you show: You delete massive sections of text, which consisted of facts, simply because you personally disagree with it, and gave utterly no explanation of your reasoning. Here is another example of you deleting good work without even having a conversation about it, Now this isn't all criticism from me. You've done common sense stuff like this, but your repeated edit warring here and here, 17 times against the same user over the past 2 months, is another example of bad behavior that ought to stop, or at least drastically decrease to the point where it isn't an issue. If you did this stuff on Wikipedia, you would have already been permabanned. You also engaged in repeated, vicious, personal attacks against a certain user, for MONTHS. This is exactly the type of behavior that probably got you binned; I'm guessing here as I have not been following the situation closely. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Need I mention that User:Pbfreespace3 has a defamatory userbox regarding the IDF on his user page? By the way, if I had the necessary programming know-how, I would add a userbox along the lines of "Hamas-bastards" (which, to be fair, is an insult to people born out of wedlock) which is sorely missing. Alas, my friend who knows about Computers has been permabanned from this wiki for an offense that was only ever alledged, never proven. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

No you needn't, unless you want to poison your own well some more. Seriously, asking the IDF to respect basic human rights is offensive to you? >.> 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:51, 7 January 42016 AQD (UTC)

Well is it offensive to you if I ask whether you have stopped beating your significant other? Obviously not every IDF soldier is a saint and some things have occured that should be dealt with. But suggesting that the IDF is an organization that purposefully deliberately and repeatedly violates is offensive, disingenuous, hurtful to both sides of the conflict and just simply not true. Comparing the IDF with the conduct of other major armies that are engaged in military activities (i.e. war), the IDF shows results that are not bad at all. And that's not even taking into account that Israel has been surrounded by countries that literally want it to disappear since its founding. Imagine how Putin or G.W. Bush would have reacted if some guys had lobbed rockets at them for years. But anyway, I do think that it is interesting how there being a dispute between me and Mona which has not always been civil (on both sides, Mona for instance has repeatedly called me stupid to get some kind of response), is seen as justification for unilateral punishment against one side. And it is remarkable that this view is shared more often by those who have a negative view of Israel thaen by those who don't. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:30, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

"Mona for instance has repeatedly called me stupid to get some kind of response" No. I meant that, and don't care about a response. You are not stupid in the sense of having no powers of cognition; you have a retarded Reasonableness IQ. I mean that absolutely. This is not intended to be name-calling; it's my actual assessment. Perhaps most importantly, I no longer believe there is the remotest possibility you can see it, much less change it. As for the IDF, I have documented its depravities. That this is "hurtful" is too fucking bad. There's about 500 dead Gazan children with pretty hurt families. But there I go, this coop case is not, as much as you keep trying to make it so, about Israel.---Mona- (talk) 21:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a history of beating my significant other (or of even having one for that matter), so your comparison seems pretty inaccurate. And asking people to be more forgiving because they totally could've done much worse isn't very convincing. But at least you admit there are problems that should be dealt with. You're making progress! 142.124.55.236 (talk) 20:49, 7 January 42016 AQD (UTC)

"But at least you admit there are problems that should be dealt with. You're making progress!" In what alternative universe? I read nothing like that. ---Mona- (talk) 21:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to add <extreme sarcasm> tags around that last bit. ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:41, 7 January 42016 AQD (UTC)

Ah. Not the first time I've missed sarcasm. Prolly won't be the last.---Mona- (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

HERE IS HOW YOU MAKE THE CASE AGAINST YOURSELF: Almost everything you've been posting, in this period where you have to carefully consider for half an hour, has been direct personal attacks on other editors, not anything of editing substance. You've been the most assiduous abuse bot you can possibly be in the circumstances, carefully crafting a sputtering flame every thirty minutes. You need to understand that this is a bad thing to do, and makes nobody keen to let you increase your rate - David Gerard (talk) 17:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

And you are also, and this is fucking amazing, trying to start another I-P flamewar RIGHT HERE IN THE CASE ABOUT YOUR BAD EDITING. It is PULLING THIS SHIT that people hate about your editing. Do you seriously not understand this? - David Gerard (talk) 22:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Avengerofthe BoN. Until this latest round of posts, I was leaning towards siding with the "give him another (supervised) chance" solution which Carpetsmoker proposed above. It is now though crystal clear that we would wasting our time.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Mona has gained more followers, but she's not fundamentally different from Avenger. You've been binned(?) at least blocked numerous times, demopped numerous times and then you had to guts to tell me „This is how it is“, as if speaking from authority. The text contained something on the lines of „If you block me again, I'll take you to coop“, and my block was a justified block in return for her blocking me for no good reason. If we are to come to a conclusion, the question is, should Avenger be banned forever, while Mona, thanks to her skills as a lawyer, keeps to get her political, POV, view? She has been a successful propagandist, and in person she's no doubt a pleasant human being. But her usurpation of I-P-Articles and the small but vociferous gathering she has, denies Avenger a fair jury. Her contributions are just as acid as Avenger's. Does nobody remember her her efforts to remove the Grand Mufti from the Israel page? Does nobody remember her devious „rationale“ for first keeping the Israel-portion of Apartheid because there wasn't material enough for a separate article. And nobody, that the Apartheid-article is mostly about Israel, then now it naturally belongs there, according to her - no separate article needed? Is anyone here at all committed to fair play? It as been said, or just about, that where Avenger's horse has trodden, no grass will grow. But Mona's certainly heartfelt contributions are as skewed as anything seen on RW. She admits me the right not to call me a Zionist, but for her I'm a „functional“ Zionist. I'm not a Zionist, so she can wrap me in any casing she wants. But she strenuously denies being an anti-Semite, an ugly word to be sure, and calls herself Pro-Palestinian. I'm sure she's that too. But to grandstand calling me something I am not, while she most certainly does not want to be called what others think, is a bit of a paradox.

Anyway, the question here doesn't seem to be about Avenger's penance, but whether he should be eradicated. The latter is far too much. I'd like to remind Mona and others of their own shenanigans and bullying. Demopped, remopped, edit wars! Sound familiar? And here I thought RW was for rational opinions. Perhaps I was wrong. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

" And here I thought RW was for rational opinions." Drink!---Mona- (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

You were right, but don't behave so. Still, being half-right is better than none at all. Sorry, an addition: Your link is inappropriate. I just took a look. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorte, like Avenger, you seem to think this coop case is the appropriate venue to re-litigate arguments -- largely about I-P pages -- the majority rejected. Moreover, that block you did of me, and the kerfuffle that ensued, is irrelevant here. Please stay on point.---Mona- (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Let me add, tho, about all this: "You've been binned(?) at least blocked numerous times, demopped numerous times" No. I don't believe I have ever been binned in the nearly six months I've been here. And the blocks have been of the friendly kind, except when Paravant or AgingHippoe blocked a bunch of us for an hour or so to stop some argument we were all having (knowing we could all unblock ourselves). I've been de-mopped once. Which lasted about an hour. But even if everything you said about me was true, this coop case is not about me. It's about Avenger.---Mona- (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

It's relevant. You blocked me for no reason, I blocked you back and then you came back all high and mighty. As for the „majority“, that was you, using your undoubted writing skills, except when your temper gets the better of you, swaying those who could be bothered to look. This electoral system reminds me of America and Donald Trump. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Uh-huh. Ok.---Mona- (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

„Uh-huh. Ok.“ I've seen this from you before. It means you don't have an answer. This is, as I understand it, a colloquialism along the lines of „Yeah! Right!“, which is a linguistic curiosity - a negative to a double affirmative - but doesn't mean anything at all except perhaps gaining the „Uh-huh. Ok.“ vote. I hope the readers are a bit more sophisticated than that. And Mona, use the vocabulary at your hand and command. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘And there I was, thinking Mona was a native speaker and had worked in a profession where use of language is a critical skill. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, after Sorte posted a false list of disciplines that I never suffered, I declined to also unravel this blocking thing he is also on about. It's because my native language fails me. As I said: "Uh-huh." I think it was Weaseloid who also recently said: "This is why we can't have nice things."---Mona- (talk) 00:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

„Disciplines?“ I suspect you're looking for another word, but you have in fact used an argument to your own authority as a major in religious studies (Josephus), so you've had some acquaintance with more disciplines than just law. I did speculate about what might ail you. Perhaps I was off. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

(ec) He's not worse than some others, and he's pretty much alone in the defense. But, Avenger, tone it down and see what transpires. Mona is speaking from a throne she may or may not possess, but she's listened to, incredibly enough. So make the most of your 30 minutes and gather links and evidence. Mona's and others' flip-flop about the Apartheid-Article is bad enough in itself although she denies that of course. She didn't have the guts to revert my edit here, but watered it down as to be meaningless. That footnote was quite valid and true as it was, but she somehow thought that the insistence on the Quran in Arabic, which is a fact, would detract from her cause, even if it was just a footnote and even if it was strictly true. She changed it from „Although the Quran is supposed to be valid in Arabic only, at least according to strict interpretations.“ to „ Although the Quran is considered best read in Arabic, much as Roman Catholics long preferred Latin, many translations now flourish.“ This is falsification and propaganda at it worst and renders the footnote meaningless. As a matter of fact, I just undid that change of hers and she'd better have a damned good reason to roll that back. If she wants to imprint her own opinions, let her write her footnote or text - not bastardizing mine. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

By the way, Mona has prolly missed every sarcasm that came her way. Humor and snark are rather absent in her. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Mona is a main character in this. Your caption was inappropriate and uncalled for. This is to David Gerard, in case of doubt and moderator or not, you're just another participant here. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 23:09, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to keep up the non sequitur personal attacks pointed at Mona, Sorte (and Avenger). Makes it all the easier to dismiss this case out of hand. :) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:12, 7 January 42016 AQD (UTC)

They're not non sequitur. But then you are the Bon. You'd dismiss anything at a whim. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 23:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Hah, and now you're attacking me. Below you even demand of me to "behave like a BoN". I admit, I'm amused. :) But I feel I should point out—once again—that all these personal attacks do nothing but to undermine this very coop case. So by all means, feel free to continue. ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:34, 7 January 42016 AQD (UTC)

I asked you to behave like a BoN, since I don't know what else to call you. You do not have the courage of your convictions as demonstrated by your erasing my contributions from your talk page a while back. The main point was that David Gerard should behave like the moderator he is, and if he chooses to participate viciously in a discussion, he should do so with some veneer of being a moderator. You on the other hand, are a much smaller fish although given the size of this pond you may have delusions of grandeur. And please learn to write. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Haha, you just can't help yourself can you. Well, don't let me stop you then. I love reading all these lovely words you have to write about me. :) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorte, it's unfortunate you've reverted to the vicious side of yourself. You'd said that was over.---Mona- (talk) 00:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not being vicious. I just follow the flow here. Our truce stands and in reality friendly feelings remain, but both you and me knew that if this matter were ever to be discussed, then that would be gloves off. I don't hate you, and I would probably feel well in your company IRL. But this is simply another matter. You do not have a clean rap-sheet, and neither do I as said. Avenger may be a nuisance sometimes, but he's intelligent and he has the courage of his convictions as opposed to a couple of users I could mention. You, incidentally, do not belong to that group. But you fight your war with any means, and as it looks I'm the only one on Avenger's side. So I have to write. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 01:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

If you think this piss-poor behavior is assisting Avener, he doesn't need friends like you. What he really needs are friends to ask him to get some counseling about the way he alienates so many. Unless his is a wholly online persona and he's not much like that. But at any online venue he's going to run into this kind of problem.---Mona- (talk) 01:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Maybe he doesn't. But I don't have your time. As it happens I have been in contact with him and can vouch for his integrity, although I still haven' found out what motivates him politically. In any case, if I'm a harmful witness for the defence, why don't you just let me get to the end of the rope and be hanged with him? That would be a neat solution. :-) Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 01:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The BoN and David Gerard are hereby kindly asked not to read more into what is said than is really there

Behave like a moderator and a BoN respectively! I had a bit of respect for David, but that is rapidly evaporating. What I have contributed is in favor of Avenger and Mona just his most vociferous opponent - and much more sly. As for the BoN, least said. Don't insert captions where they don't belong. The writers here are perfectly capable of finding out where what belongs, well most of us. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 23:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Vote

Restructured 21:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC). Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 21:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Bin length/conditions

Immediate unbinning

1. Immediate unbinning. And granting of sysop rights. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Keep binned until moderator election results (2 days), then revisit

This seems sensible. This current coop case is all over the place and has been shamelessly diverted by TL:DR posts about opinions on Israel/Palestine and worst of all, about another editor (Mona).--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 23:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

(EC) & That will be case all over again when it's brought up again in two days time (as you're suggesting) or two weeks time (as CorruptUser suggests). For this to be anything other than a recurrent waste of time it needs an outcome that doesn't involve us having to revisit it repeatedly. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Weaseloid, your comment made no sense to me until I realized FCP had rewritten my header. I don't know if that's what TRWP wants to vote for, but it is what I propose -- to throw it to all the mods.---Mona- (talk) 00:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

This is a community decision, not a mod decision. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, is there some RW Separation of Powers doctrine that prevents us from kicking it over to the mods, if we so vote?---Mona- (talk) 01:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The doctrine of Ratwiki is "do whatever you want as long as you don't piss off everyone else". We are a mobocracy, not a bureaucracy. CorruptUser (talk) 01:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

That's what I always thought. So doesn't that mean the mob can vote to hand it off to the mods?---Mona- (talk) 01:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The largest issue we will have in coming to a conclusion on this is that the case page is full of irrelevant verbiage. With the best will in the world it hard ploughing through all the irrelevance. I collapsed some of that earlier today but I see that edit was undone. Hence, I thought it would be a good idea to let this settle, get the new mods in place and then somebody (preferably a moderator) could lay out clearly why Avenger is binned (it only needs a few lines, not essays about political opinions) and a voting section.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 08:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

TRWP, if your vote is for the version FCP drafted, and means coming back to the coop yet again, I don't vote for that. It'd just be this redux. So either my vote or yours doesn't belong here. I could remove mine and restore FCPs header if that's what you'd prefer?---Mona- (talk) 14:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand. Both versions of the header above above imply the same thing to me. But to be clear, my vote is exactly as I explained. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 14:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Right, you see this coming back to the coop. I specifically want to hand it off to the mods for them to make the decision.---Mona- (talk) 14:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

And most of it was added by Avenger himself or in response to his "statements". If he wants to clutter up his own coop case with lots of useless red herrings, then that's his own problem. In fact, exactly this behaviour ad nauseam is one reason he's in the vandal bin in the first place. Carpetsmoker (talk) 08:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

That's why I posted this option. Otherwise, I'd go for the other versions of staying binned, even if it was a bin on just a topic-area or two. (Determined by category.)---Mona- (talk) 00:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Unbin after 2 weeks of good behavior

1. If he can make useful edits, sure, if not, back in bin. CorruptUser (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

   The issue has never been about his occasional useful edits. But even being in the bin right now, he still had to go dragging drama into the Saloon. Again.---Mona- (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

   (EC) He's been binned for a month and intermittently for most of the month or two before that, so what's special about the next two weeks? Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

   Binned, blocked, pages protected -- and it is my understanding pages had to be protected due to him back when he was a BoN, before I arrived.---Mona- (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

2. Sounds fair. He's capable of useful edits. That he's been the underdog in this is due his inferior legal skills (letter of the law, spirit of the law or a combination of both, as the lawyer Mona very well knows) and very probably the experience of Mona in arguing. She's good at that, which doesn't make her right, by the way. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

   He has been the underdog in this because he is a tendentious editor. Also, this is about Avenger, not Mona. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 01:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

3. So far he's failing to achieve 30 minutes of good behaviour, with almost everything he's posting while binned being personal attacks on other editors. (Then he asks what the problem actually is.) So I feel sadly confident he will never make 1/168 of a week, let alone two weeks - David Gerard (talk) 17:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

   If this one wins, he'll make a beeline for I-P articles and make edits and reverts he knows the majority doesn't support. Shit will ensue. And he'll claim that I and others are the unreasonable ones.---Mona- (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

   You're right, he's LITERALLY STARTED AGAIN RIGHT HERE ON THIS PAGE - David Gerard (talk) 22:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Unbin with topic ban on I-P, rebin if fail

1. With possible topic-vandal bin, as stated in #Possible solution: vandal brake only for some topics? (but pending that, a topic-ban will do). Carpetsmoker (talk) 00:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

   That is fine with me as long as some mechanism is available to keep him binned from the I-P categories, broadly construed. But I honestly think the best thing to do is let the mods thrash through it all after the election.---Mona- (talk) 00:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

   Topic-specific vandal brakes are a bad idea that will be high maintenance & set a strange precedent. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:43, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

   This is just one reason why a mob resolution is near impossible. We need to have some Deciders, who know what can be done and just do it. Otherwise, what? What could our options be?---Mona- (talk) 01:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

   ADDING: I could only support this if there is a mechanism to keep him out of pages in certain categories. Otherwise, we are going to have endless debates about whether this or that article is among the prohibited. That is, it will not solve the drama problem. It will create one.---Mona- (talk) 01:09, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

2. While I don't know enough about wiki software to know whether it's feasible to automate this, and suspect it will require human intervention, this seems reasonable. I'd also give him more leeway on talk pages, where he can be ignored if he gets too tendentious or monotonous. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 17:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

   He made even talk pages unusable, with Avenger and Mona filling the WIGO talk pages with I-P arguing. So I'm not sure that would help. A useful measure would be the stuff he carefully posts each half-hour at present - note that it is almost entirely personal attacks on others and not matters of any substance - David Gerard (talk) 17:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

   That sounds like two people were causing a problem, not one. ħuman 03:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

3. User shows good intention on non-IP articles. Automation may be impossible; however, it's easy enough to bin someone. This also has the side benefit of letting AOTB show ability to act non-tendentiously. Note: I don't think WIGO applies to a topic ban, he can post WIGOs about anything. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 01:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
4. This seems to me to be the best outcome. Ideally, the VB approach to the I-P topics, limiting edits, or perhaps no article edits and free rein on the talk pages. But my vote is for the option specifically named in the header. ħuman 03:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

   Because editing one's poor grammar in relatively real time does matter. ħuman 03:47, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

   I'd have considered supporting this, but there doesn't seem to be a tech way to place binning on a user for articles with various category links. In the absence of such a means, the user will almost certainly simply instigate drama over the question of what is or is not included in the "topic ban." Meaning: No end to this user's drama and disruption.---Mona- (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Unbin if they can manage to be at least 36.5% less denialist about ever having done anything wrong and can throw around 15.4% fewer red herrings
(Or: Keep 'em permanently binned, but with a humorously impossible caveat through which they could (purely) hypothetically earn being unbinned)

1. Lol. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 02:18, 7 January 42016 AQD (UTC)

   What is your methodology? Or are these Schlafly statistics? Carpetsmoker (talk) 02:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

   I just arbitrarily picked two numbers. Feel free to make another proposal with different numbers, though I doubt it'd make any real difference for Avenger being able to fulfil the requirements. ;) Incidentally, both 36.5 and 15.4 are almost divisible by 3. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 02:26, 7 January 42016 AQD (UTC)

   Well, that'll never happen, so no fruit cup for you, 142.---Mona- (talk) 02:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

   Exactly my point. :) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 02:30, 7 January 42016 AQD (UTC)

   It wasn't exactly a serious question. Obvious joke is obvious ;-) Carpetsmoker (talk) 02:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

   I have never said that I have never done anything wrong. But I am still waiting for any reason for my current binning besides the controversial statement that Mona and Paravant misunderstood, which I already explained. And yes I fully admit to having made a flippant edit summary comment... So? And as for the red herrings... There are indeed cases where something not immedeately obvious plays a role. Would you have thought that there is a connection between racism and American Football? Well there is. And as for the canard of editing once every half hour somehow being good, well I have responded to that elsewhere already... But we can of course put Mona in the bin and see how the article on Glennn Greenwald changes... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

   That's some nice denialism about ever having been denialist there. And I'm counting at least one red herring in your post. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:08, 7 January 42016 AQD (UTC)

   I thought to ask how binning me would relate to the Greenwald article (which I did heavily edit, but without much fuss from anyone) but, no. Some non sequiturs are best left unexplored.---Mona- (talk) 01:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Keep him permabinned

1. Keep him in the bin. He can still edit, but not edit-war. Creating and curating main space content is not a game of ping-pong. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 01:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

   Pray do tell, how me being in the vandal bin permanently is supposed to be justified, given that the last action taken on this (prior to unilateral fiat of one now departed editor) was explicitly to unbin and resysop me... And creating main space content is in a very real sense a game of ping pong, insofar as a good article is hardly ever the work of one editor alone. Have a look at Bombing of Dresden which was greatly improved by others weighing in on my contributions... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

   Pay no attention to the nomenclature of the bin. It has often been used to put the brakes on other editors who, strictly speaking, were not vandals.

   Collaborative editing proceeds at a stately pace, compared to ping-pong. Editing main space is not a game of serve and volley. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 02:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

2. This user has caused a lot of trouble in edit wars, and keeping them binned is a good idea. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 12:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
3. This is my contingent vote if there's no support for handing it over to the mods, and if there's no software tweak that can block him from all I-P category pages, broadly construed.---Mona- (talk) 13:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
4. Permabin, revisit in no less than six months. He's LITERALLY trying to start another I-P flamewar RIGHT HERE IN THE CASE ABOUT HIS BAD EDITING - David Gerard (talk) 22:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
5. This is now clearly the correct option. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

   How is this clearly only correct opinion. Opinions in cases like these are never clearly right or wron, just wrong in different ways. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 01:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

   It says option, not opinion.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 01:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

   Sorry TRWP. Duly noted. Cheers. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 01:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

   I'm absolutely opposed to anything permanent. How is that justice? But vulgus mobile will decide - it's probably out of anyone's hands by now. And, to answer a question which might or might be brought up: I'm not here to gain popularity and never have - just as good, since I tend to open my mouth when in the minority, which is sadly frequent. So go wash your hands. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 01:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

6. Keep him in the bin. Still able to contribute, less of a bother for other users to deal with. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 09:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
7. This is the only way how to avoid drama Typhoon (talk) 11:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Archive this case & try to get on with our lives

1. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Goat

• I could support three of the above. This voting is poorly structured. The first question we should entertain is whether we should let Avenge out of the bin, and the second is -- if the answer is no -- under what terms and for what duration.---Mona- (talk) 21:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
• C®ackeЯ 02:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
• I can't vote. I personally think he's been too much of a shithead about things to give good quality critical feedback. There's a point where I see someone actively endorsing crimes against humanity, and I just can't fully separate their awful opinions from their awful behavior. I tried to come up with a good answer for what he's actually done that's problematic for the wiki, but I can't help but treat his sincere opinions as trolling in that analysis. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 15:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Conclusion

Well, this coop case's gotten pretty off track. While entertaining Sorte's notions of... something or other... is fun and all, I doubt it has much to do with the coop's intended purpose. So I'd say it's time we concluded this whatchamacallit already. Counting all the votes, there appears to be a plurality in support of permabinning, with the rest of the voters (which add up to a majority) divided over various other options (no consensus). Either way, the de facto result is the same: Avenger stays in the bin, indefinitely, until such a time the mob rules otherwise. Any objections to archiving this mess? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:55, 8 January 42016 AQD (UTC)

Well, we do want to have a time certain before it can be revisited. David Gerard said at least 6 months. How's that?---Mona- (talk) 02:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

As much as I would like to agree with you, I fear it needs to stay active for longer. Relatively few votes have actually been cast. This may well be for the reasons I tried to explain above (it is hard to find the actual issue amongst all the clutter) and it might be over-optimistic to expect many more. But nonetheless, I think the case needs to stay open for a few more days. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 02:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that works for me.---Mona- (talk) 02:08, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, 13 votes have been cast, with 1 stated abstention and 1 unexplained goat. I doubt many more are gonna cast their vote, let alone in such numbers that it'd influence the result. But hey, if people wanna keep it open... *shrugs* Don't complain I didn't warn you though. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 02:16, 8 January 42016 AQD (UTC)

Well. The "unbin" votes are in the majority as of now. The only thing there is still disagreement on is the point in time of when and under which conditions to unbin. Or have I suddenly become bad at counting and 5 is a bigger number thaen 8 now? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Name the 8 votes please? I can see 1 for unconditional unbinning (your own vote) plus five for various levels of conditional unbinning? And 5 for permabinning.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 02:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, if you wanna get technical, there's 7 votes for unbinning (1 of which also unapologetically advocates sysopping and 1 other of which is in obvious jest), 5 votes for permabinning and 1 vote for swift archival of this case (which can be construed as tacit approval of the current binning). But if it comes down to it, I'll readily change my vote to something else if you want the vote to end more decisively in your disfavour. ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 02:35, 8 January 42016 AQD (UTC)

142, I really do think you should do that. But I'm still withholding the fruit cup. ---Mona- (talk) 02:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Just remembering Socrates: He was declared guilty by a fairly small majority, but then there had to be another hearing about the punishment. I don't know about you, but if binning is the wish of the mob, it should at least absolutely not be permanent. Avenger should also still have the rights he has, one contribution every 30 minutes, no more. He'll prove himself and use this imposed limit to write about something else - or at least choose his words carefully. Avenger, are you listening? Speaking for myself, it seems that 6 months are he feasible minimum, so I'll go with that and that is my actual vote, which I still presume I have, since my previous acceptance of a lesser punishment was shot down - by the way, not my original suggestion but what I voted for, when that seemed to be an option. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 02:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

6 months in Internet time is 6 years real-time. I say 1 month, that's more than sufficient time to prove good behavior. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 02:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I, for one, do not want to re-visit this topic every month. Whatever the decision of this coop will be should stick for at least six months (unless something truly dramatic happens in the meantime). Carpetsmoker (talk) 02:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh my Christ, yes. Doing this every month is too awful to contemplate. Look, in the view of many he merits perma-binning. 6 months is gift.---Mona- (talk) 03:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Six months seem to be some kind of minimum. I disgree, but better that than permabinning. But to that should be added, that he retains his right to edit every 30 minutes. As it seems, he's not on auto-patrol so it would be a slight matter to censor. And if Avenger writes something which does not get through, that occasion does not count. I have high hopes that he'll use this time to think out carefully constructed edits. He's not untalented, you know, just hot-headed. And half a year goes by all to quickly, and then Avenger will fulfill his potential. And if IP-edits are reasonable, then he should be allowed to post there. As it is, some sort of junta sits on those articles and that is never good. Remember the Mufti's picture? It had every reason to be there, but it was manipulated and finally forced out. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 03:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

How do we count votes?

If I may start an aside about vote counting procedure: If we only look at the vote numbers for each option, it's obvious that "Permabinned" wins with five votes. However, a total of *seven* votes were cast for the three other options.

Now, it seems obvious to me that whoever voted for "Immediate Unbinning" considers "After 2 weeks of good behaviour" a much better option than "permabin"; and the folk that voted for "2 weeks" would consider "topic ban on I/P" a better solution. If we cascade votes like this, we get five for permabin, and seven for "topic ban on I/P".

It seems to me that counting votes in this way more accurately reflects the majority opinion. This is also how we count moderator votes, by the way... Carpetsmoker (talk) 02:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

(multiple edit conflicts) I think we can ask those who voted on what they mean by their vote, as there is no issue of secret voting or lack of time which precludes that in most other voting systems. If I may add an attempt at compromise, we could clarify the topic ban to be either a) limited to a certain time x or b) limited to mainspace or c) limited to anything but userspace and essayspace. And as a further aside, of the five votes for permabinning there is not one who has neither a history of antagonizing me, nor a history of being openly against Israel. Of course people who hate Israel have a right to free speech as well, but I just found this remarkable. Anyway, I tihink it was someone from the Hungarian KP (Communist Party) who once said "It doesn't matter who votes as long as we are the ones who count the votes". Good night. And good luck. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 03:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, you know, people have changed their mind based on Avenger's behavior during this very process. That could continue.---Mona- (talk) 02:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I clarified my voting option a bit so as to avoid people cascading it the wrong way. ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 03:14, 8 January 42016 AQD (UTC)

Oops, I didn't intend to count your vote but it seems I accidentally did. At any rate, the point still stands, not just for this coop case, but coop cases in general... Carpetsmoker (talk) 03:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

"And as a further aside, of the five votes for permabinning there is not one who has neither a history of antagonizing me, nor a history of being openly against Israel." You can now add revisionist historian to your CV.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 03:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

David Gerard is one of the 5 (well, 6 since 142 has edited his vote to equal that) for perma-binning (for at least 6 months says David) and, if he has a position on Israel, that flew right by me.---Mona- (talk) 05:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The vote is badly formulated with only a few voters. Aside from showing that nobody other than Avenger himself wants to unbin him, it's pretty inconclusive. Certainly you can't retrospectively apply a nonstandard voting method to votes that have already been cast or make assumptions that users voting one way are also voting another. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

You know what you can do? Ask people how to interpret their votes. It's not like they died after putting their ballot in the box. And as for Mister Gerard's history (interestingly enough Mona does not deny it for the other four), Sorte Slyngel and I have certainly noticed it... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Most current vote tally

If one includes 142's vote (which he clearly intends to have done) there are: 8 votes for permabinned, there are 2 votes for ubinned after 2 weeks, there are 4 votes for unbin with topic ban on I-P, rebin if fail, and 1 vote (Avenger's) for unbin.

So, it is 8 votes for permabin, and 7 votes for something else.---Mona- (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Why are none of y'all counting my vote? Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Prolly cuz it's hard to categorize. ;)---Mona- (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I think we should ask those who were involved in the last coop case on the same issue how their vote has changed and if so why. And Mona, please for the love of god learn your first language, if you refuse to learn a second that is actually of any use. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

What?! Avenger, are you saying you've been cooped before!?---Mona- (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

My dear Mona, may I refresh your memory? I hope this is not a symptom of early onset dementia, because I quite vividly remember this, as well as that, which was a result of you doing that and that. Does the phrase "Journo-Buddies" still ring a bell? Of course, I don't want to re-litigate old cases, (much less the one that resulted from this reversion), so we should accept the results of the coop cases as they were: in my case the result was quite clearly me being let out of the bin (which was itself the result of unilateral action on the part of I don't know which user) and demoted to sysop and Mona not being kicked off unceremoniously for threatening the wiki for something that turned out to be wildly not true. But of course the predictable voices will scream at the top of their lungs that I committed some unpardonable crime by having made this little tour into the recent history of the wiki, just like apparently posting to a user talk page to inform said user of some discussion or other is an unpardonable crime. Or as is the collapsing of texts other write.... Oops.... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Insulting another user for alleged linguistic errors (seriously), puerile dementia accusations, rehashing old coop cases, denying you want to rehash old coop cases, yadda yadda about unilateral actions, whining about being called out on rallying up supporters, and so on. Avenger, if you're itching this much for unilateral mod action, you could just ask politely. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Meh, he's talking about some (non)coop cases he and his pals brought about me right after I got here, and which went nowhere. Arisboch even conceded it was stupid for him to have initiated whichever coop of his was about me. Anyway, here we are again: Avenger talking abut everything but his own disruptive behavior.---Mona- (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

What has become of Rationalwiki?

I mean seriously, after reading this coop case (and I am sure, I am partially to blame for some of it) a neutral observer is bound to get the impression that bickering and puerile behavior is the normal way things are done here. We are not even really discussing content here, we have entered the second or third meta-level (and truth be told, this is just the next meta-level, so feel free to open the next meta-level by complaining about this text on a meta-level). Some people seem to think that the goal is to "win" first and foremost. And by that they don't mean compromise. They mean utter defeat and humiliation of whatever is or is perceived to be the other side. The case of Arisboch is just another example. I don't know what he did or didn't do, but the only two options are that he did something which would be highly uncharacteristic or a group of people got together and misinterpreted something, made something up or in some other way found a way to get rid of him. Which is sad, because whatever his faults, whatever my faults, whatever even Mona's faults, aren't there things we all share? A general disdain for authoritarianism for instance. And a disdain for organized religion. And a disdain for groups and people that exhibit this. Such as George W Bush. Or Hamas. Right now the only corners of the Internet still talking about us are making fun of us. Or am I too stupid to use google to find the praising essays on RW covering all corners of the world wide web? I may be mistaken, but in the last couple of weeks, many quality contributors have either left or greatly decreased their contributions. Sure, Mona might "win", if she hasn't already. But ask yourselves: What is victory? And wouldn't a victory that makes our common project RW even more irrelevant be worth the hassle? Imagine someone were to write an article about RW right now; don't you think the bottom line would be something like "Well they used to be great for this that and the other thing, but now...".

Seriously, what is the last positive - genuinely positive - news about RW you remember? I don't know whether the amount of times you link to RW in other places has decreased. For me, it certainly has. In fact, I find myself thinking sometimes "That's not my RW anymore". And don't think I am the only one who says that. True this wiki has withstood greater fires in the past and it will certainly survive this. There probably will be a Rationalwiki when Avenger, Mona or even Arisboch are names that sound like a whisper in the wind. But I fear the attitude has changed. Call me nuts, but I always found RW a good-natured place. Yes there sometimes were harsh words. Maybe even people who dislike each other. But ultimately it was all good-natured, because we had a common purpose. Defeating the cranks. Shitting over pseudo-science. Now I find a spirit in many places around this wiki that I can only describe as verbissen and please look up that term because I can't find an idiomatic English expression. I once thought there might even be room for a German language RW, because there is so much crankery in the German language that needs to be refuted. That need still exists. But I know what would be said if I were to write a German language article on - say - Pegida. And that is exactly that: Back in the day there was no speculation about ulterior motives behind every second edit. Nobody argued it was somehow better for an editor to only edit every half an hour. I am sorry for my rant and it probably decreases my chances of getting clemency even further, as everything I say or do apparently does, but I just wanted to have said this. Good night. And good luck. Good luck to us all. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Another good reason to burn RW political articles to the ground!!!1!

TBH I'd prefer edit wars to this. At least then, people paid attention to the article instead of the coop. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 23:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

No way to do that. For one thing, too many prominent atheists are heavily involved in controversial politics, ranging from issues implicating feminism, to the I-P land-mine, to Islamophobia, and the list goes on.---Mona- (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Who says people are paying attention to this? tl;dr buddy. Carpetsmoker (talk) 23:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, the biggest issue is that members are not paying attention to this. Something for which anyone could be forgiven.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

There's some valid points in there intermingled with faulty correlations of those points to this coop case and a bunch of irrelevant Mona-namedrops/accusations. Not gonna bother analyzing it further. Though there is one point I might want to expand on... 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

No one is more committed than I am to improving the profile of this site. The sad fact is that too many articles are poorly written and barely sourced, if at all. I've put quite a bit of effort into fixing that, and have strongly encouraged a new user who seems interested only in making scads and scads of good copy-edits and sourcing. That, and when I'n not ill or distracted by nonsense like Avenger's or the GG-related horror show that went on around Xmas, I'm helping build a fine article that isn't anywhere else on the web: Targeted Individuals. In my strong view, it is necessary -- but not sufficient -- for the wiki not to tolerate disruptive users who drain tons of energy and coop-case time if the wiki is going to draw and retain good editors, and thus thrive.---Mona- (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Avenger: "Back in the day there was no speculation about ulterior motives behind every second edit."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... You haven't been around this wiki very long, have you? You think it has not attracted concern trolls and other kinds of stealthy wandalism from the very outset? That is so adorable.

As far as verbissen goes, if it seems that everyone you meet is a bloody-minded asshole, look in the mirror. Chances are very good that the asshole is you. Alec Sanderson (talk) 00:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Anything more of substance?

Currently there's no consensus in the vote or discussion to debin Avenger at this point in time, as Avenger brings the best JCBs he can to the task of digging a deeper hole. Is there anything substantial anyone wants to add, keep this open, come up with a startling new argument, etc? - David Gerard (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Don't we have 8-7 to permabin (with you stating at least for 6 mos)? But yeah, the discussion is now seems pointless.---Mona- (talk) 00:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Plus 1 tacit approval of keeping Avenger binned. Let's archive already. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:23, 9 January 42016 AQD (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘142, are you counting Weaselooid as the tacit vote for perma-binned? I'd considered doing that, but was concerned about whether others would also interpret that way. But yes, that would make it 9 to keep binned, 6 for conditional out of the bin, and 1 for out of the bin.---Mona- (talk) 10:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Yup, indeed. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 11:36, 9 January 42016 AQD (UTC)

Does that mean, 142, you are claiming a consensus to bin, case closed, and time to archive?---Mona- (talk) 02:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The onus was on Avenger to gain a majority to overturn his binning; he failed. Instead we have a majority supporting keeping him in the bin indefinitely. Yes, I'd say that closes the case and it's time to archive. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 02:24, 9 January 42016 AQD (UTC)

It's almost 11 p.m. ET here in the U.S. If there's still a majority for perma-bin by noon my time, I'd say call case closed, and archive.---Mona- (talk) 03:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

If it's hinging on a single vote, then that's a "no consensus" to me. So what do we do when there's no consensus? Probably nothing and maintain the status quo (i.e. keep Avenger binned). We could defer the matter to the mods and let them sort it out, which will probably result in the same. Carpetsmoker (talk) 10:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

1. If I'm reading 142 correctly, he feels Weaseloid is effectively voting for permabin, which would be 9 and is larger than the total of all other votes. 2. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but coop decisions merely require majority votes, do they not? Not consensus. If we don't have an altered voting situation by noon I still support closing the case and archiving.---Mona- (talk) 11:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

My vote was to "archive this case & try to get on with our lives", which seems to be what you all are saying now, yeah? I'm not really voting for or against Avenger being in the bin, as I'll go along with either. I do object to special snowflake solutions which involve building new inventions & policies to deal with him, but as that no longer seems to be something anyone is pushing, I am content. I also think the vote was rather clumsy & possibly unnecessary. It might be best for moderators to guide when a coop case should go to a vote & how it should be managed whenever possible, rather than anybody just shouting "vote" in the middle of a discussion as usually tends to be the case. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I think vandal binning per topic could also be useful for other users; Avenger would be the first but probably not the only user that would get a topic vandal-bin... Carpetsmoker (talk) 13:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

CS, it's not workable to have a mere pledge not to edit "a topic." There'd have to be software to prevent it on all pages tagged with various categories. Unless and until such software tweaking is available this just is a nonstarter.---Mona- (talk) 14:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I understand this. Which is exactly why I offered to write said software. Carpetsmoker (talk) 14:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Not gonna happen. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Excellent reasoning. Carpetsmoker (talk) 14:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Leaving someone binned but not actually banned is the sort of thing that should be odd, and an elaborate system of hierarchies is probably a bad thing. Also, arguing at ridiculous length is The RW Way, though crapping up half the wiki is likely to annoy people - David Gerard (talk) 13:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The first rule of modding is: don't go looking for work - David Gerard (talk) 11:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, there's one thing

Should IPs/other accounts Avenger edits with also receive the same binning or do we leave those alone until he does something bad with them? I'm fine with doing the latter, but just thought I'd ask. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 11:44, 9 January 42016 AQD (UTC)

Is this an actual or hypothetical problem? In practice, if we suddenly see new accounts and IPs spamming tendentious I-P flamewars across the wiki, I expect the mob would respond sensibly - I would generally predict that users will get annoyed and assume that something looking, walking, and quacking like a duck is a duck, even if it loudly declares it's really a platypus, and bin them in turn - David Gerard (talk) 13:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's an actual situation—I've recently seen an IP and a fresh user account make very typical Avenger edits, so far only in mainspace, mostly undisruptively. Whether it's actually a problem... *shrugs* 142.124.55.236 (talk) 13:06, 9 January 42016 AQD (UTC)

That's almost certainly Avenger. He's on about German stuff in the Pegida piece, and in the Jeb Bush one it's an edit about who speaks two languages and who doesn't-- one of Avengers' (many) obsessions.---Mona- (talk) 14:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Let's see what they have to say about Mona ... - David Gerard (talk) 13:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)