RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive43

Michaeldsuarez (JuniusThaddeus)

I'm hereby bringing to the community's attention User:Michaeldsuarez, alias JuniusThaddeus (the name he uses on Encyclopedia Dramatica), and his pattern of concern troll shit-stirring & sealioning on RW while gleefully endorsing attacks on the site & its editors elsewhere.

• 11 December: Michaeldsuarez reveals he is in correspondence with Vordrak, who has asked for personal info on RW editors.
• But he still thinks Vordrak shouldn't have been banned from RW. And he confirms that he is indeed researching Gooniepunk's IRL identity.
• 29 December: Michaeldsuarez posts at the Chicken Coop that "It has come to my attention that an user is using Shouniaisha as their username" etc. etc. (this after several threads on the subject at Gamergate subreddits) and JAQs suspiciously about whether RW has any policy against this.
• Sure enough, he then edits ED's page about RW encouraging readers to troll RW with pedophile-related usernames (NSFW! expect porn pop-ups if you click on anything there).
• 3 January: he's back on RW trying to stir up anger over something that was already resolved (the SecretAgentoftheMods account).
• Over the next few days he then adds a detailed account of these & other recent events (Kiwi Farms, Vordrak's blog posts, etc.) to ED's page on RW, painting himself, Vordrak & Arisboch as heroes/victims and linking to personal info about at least two RW editors.
• Now he is trying to add a similar account (albeit without the doxxing) to our own Timeline of Gamergate article.

If this isn't concern troll behaviour, I don't know what is. I have removed Michaeldsuarez's sysop status (and here he is once again playing the innocent, feigning bewilderment as to why he isn't trusted). But really I don't feel he should be welcome here at all. As doxxing is involved, I don't think a lengthy/indefinite block would be inappropriate as with Arisboch & Vordrak. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I refuse to click ED links as they do not let you view anything with an Ad-blocker enabled. I can only imagine what level of shite appears if the ad-blocker is disabled. So I will just take your word for the offsite stuff Weaseloid. Yes burn him and burn him long. Concern trolling of the most disruptive nature.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 08:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. There's only one way to handle someone like this. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 08:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Ha. Their ED edits don't even meet ED's standards. (no 'do you believe that' after 'legit complaints', repeatedly and awkwardly inserting themself into the article, etc.) Narky Sawtooth (BoN is paranoid!) 08:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

ED has standards? - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 09:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, & kittens. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The on-RW nuisance would seem to merit sysoprevoke and a ban. If there's off-site shit-stirring, well, whatever. If there's off-site doxxing activity, permaban and salt the earth. I don't think anyone has been buying Michaeldsuarez's concern trolling act for some time now. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 11:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you're one of the users he's been doxxing. AFAIK it's the same stuff as was posted in that thread at that other site. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Hm, I was figuring Shouniaisha was Vordrak-related, but a Michaeldsuarez sock sounds far more plausible (one thing Vordrak doesn't have is even an ED level of humour). The account was really obviously set up for this sort of concern trolling and to manufacture a claim against RW - David Gerard (talk) 12:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I wish that I were that clever, but no, I'm not responsible for creating the "Shouniaisha" account. I've alerted Shouniaisha (now "Ukuphendukela") to your paranoid accusation. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Kill him with fire, then. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

31.4 yr ban w/ IP ban

1. Doxxes users offsite, intentionally and with malice. This, alone, is sufficient for a ban. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 15:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
2. David Gerard (talk) 16:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
3. --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
4. together with torture, very painful torture.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 16:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
5. No question about it. For all of the above reasons, especially FCP's.---Mona- (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
6. JorisEnter (talk) 20:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
7. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 23:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I've given him a permanent ban, consistent with what Arisboch & other editors in the past have got for doxxing RW editors at other sites. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify: to my knowledge Arisboch didn't participate in the doxing. He was "merely" participating supportively with the malicious views of the RW editors who were being doxed, and made absolutely no objections. That is also banworthy.---Mona- (talk) 00:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Block Japanese pedophile account too

1. I mean really - David Gerard (talk) 19:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
2. I feel like this goes without saying. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 23:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
3. Another no-brainer.---Mona- (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Uh... Why are people associating these two? Yeah, MDS was a prick about Ukuphendukela's former name, but that fits his general concern troll pattern better than a sock pattern. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 00:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I am curious about why Mona has changed her tone on this. Correct if I am wrong, but I remember Mona felt sorry for the way people like Uk were treated and found no reason to remove him from this site. Also why is this even being brought, David, mds has been banhammered; has something else happened off site that I don't know about?--Owlman (talk) 00:24, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

That was not and is not my position. Along with Paravant I didn't think someone who stated they had attraction to minors but was inactive and affirmed that acting on it was intolerable, didn't merit banning. As a separate matter I feel empathy for all humans who are beset with compulsions that society properly cannot tolerate.---Mona- (talk) 00:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I believe you on that so why are voting to remove this user from the site; has something else, that I most likely am unaware about, happened that has changed your position on hosting this user on our site?--Owlman (talk) 00:36, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Is it not the case that this user created the account at the direction of others to cause trouble at this wiki? If he actually is what he presented himself as then I'll withdraw my vote. But are there actual users claiming to be pedophiles targeting us? That is what I understand the situation to be. ---Mona- (talk) 00:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

No, I think you're misunderstanding some of what I posted above, or maybe I assumed everyone was more familiar with recent events than they actually are. Let me recap:

• Shouniaisha (now renamed to something else) appeared in November, posted something about being a pedophile on his user page, made some benign edits & then vanished.
• Meanwhile, the fallout over KotakuInAction & Vordrak's banning & whatever else meant a bunch of Gamergaters angry at RW were looking for things to be outraged about & started pointing at Shouniaisha.
• Several of these trolls, including Michaeldsuarez, turned up at RW demanding that we ban Shouniaisha (who wasn't even editing at the time).
• Since we didn't, Michaeldsuarez then posted the suggestion I linked to above in the "how to troll RW" section of ED's RW article ("Use non-English words for the word 'pedophile' as your handle").

Given the timing, I have wondered whether Shouniaisha was a sock created by Gamergaters to manufacture a controversy, but I don't think there's compelling evidence that this is the case, & I doubt that it's Michaeldsuarez specifically. More than likely it's a legitimate user, which makes it shitty to ban them just because of the fuss Gamergate trolls are kicking up. OTOH, tensions tend to run high around the subject of pedophilia, & having an 'out' pedophile around the site may cause more drama than it's worth, whether or not they're a concern troll. The best outcome might be an account block without the usual IP block, so he can make a new account if he wants to & not talk about pedophilia. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I would also like to make a point that these people have a long and well-documented history of manufacturing controversy in an effort to slander their opponents. It would be their MO to do something like this. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 01:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The account in question was clearly created to facilitate concern trolling in a ridiculous attempt to attack the site, and even if the two users in question are not in fact the same people, it should be banned regardless. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 00:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

But why do we now believe this user is being a concern troll by lying about being a pedophile/hebephile in order to create controversy like this. The first time I saw his sexual 'preference' brought up was when two users, one being the now banned mds, who created a coop case; Paravant blocked both these users after one of them harassed this user to kill himself.--Owlman (talk) 00:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

RE: Is it not the case that this user created the account at the direction of others to cause trouble at this wiki? and The account in question was clearly created to facilitate concern trolling:

There's no evidence for this. Again, why believe this? Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 01:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The user has zero contributions to this site outside of talk pages, and despite nobody on-site giving a flying fuck about them, was almost immediately the cause of off-site concern trolling and scorn. The timing of this was also around the height of the events happening towards the end of last year, when we were dealing with a group who loves accusing every one of it's targets of being paedophiles or paedophile defenders. Simply put, it is too convenient. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 01:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Unless I have missed something fundamental, all the evidence is circumstantial. I do appreciate the level of coincidence and this is suspicious. But there is nothing firmer than that right? Equally, I will say that I would not oppose the removal of this user account.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 01:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I might actually oppose the removal of this user if no non-circumstantial evidence is provided. Ironically, Kitsunelaine, you have become paranoid about doxxing from GGers et al. while Ryu admirably, in my eyes, tried to fight such claims on the GG page as non-sequiturs or doxxed info when people attacked various 'anti-GGers' as pedophiles.--Owlman (talk) 01:24, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

There are things you shouldn't expect from people when you don't know them. Poking the beehive of people like this is one of them. My method of dealing with this nowadays is mostly behind the scenes with mod contact. I've done a lot that you don't know about. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 01:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Backchannel lobbying in non-public channels. Exactly like Conservapedia and everything RationalWiki strives not to be. Carpetsmoker (talk) 01:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Fuck off, Carpetsmoker. The "Email user" button exists for a reason. You lack the empathy to realise the danger you put other users of this site in, and you mock them for taking reasonable actions to circumvent it. You also only appeared in this thread to sneer at me, something you have done multiple times in cases that had previously been resolved. I would very much appreciate it if you didn't go out of your way to antagonize the userbase and cause any more damage to this site. Otherwise, it'll be you who's on the chopping block next. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 02:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The only thing I expect in this so called anarcho-syndicalist website which prides itself on "constructive dialogue" and "rational thought" against "authoritarianism" is critical thinking and evidence to support paranoia. Let's not entertain those offsite with the idea that their are "juntas" and "cabals", as MarcusCicero would say, within rationalwiki and that such "SJWs" have infected our moderators.--Owlman (talk) 01:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

First, there is nothing wrong with relying on circumstantial evidence provided it is compelling enough. People are convicted, rightly, all the time based on such evidence (and also when the evidence is not remotely strong enough). Second, if it is the case that the deranged GG people are openly advising that people create "pedophile" accounts here, I support banning any claimed pedophile who "just happened" to show up so recently. Among other things, the doxers who are after Goonie, and who attacked me through information about my family, are insanely shrieking that I and basically all editors here "support pedophiles." This bullshit has to end. And now, here we are, giving them more for fodder to discuss me and others. Hence my suggestion -- imploring, really -- that the mods handle this kind of thing in private. ---Mona- (talk) 02:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I am in no way saying that the paranoia is unwarranted or that such doxxing was not serious or harassing, but we should not be, as a community, thrown in disarray where we begin to accuse any new user of being a ED/GG/KIA etc plant when they admit to something these people ridicule. Are we to assume that every new user who admits to being a fetishist, furry, otherkin, non-binary gender, and any various unpopular political ideology is a subversive element working to create offsite drama when the simple answer, in this case, maybe that a ED user who had used rationalwiki found someone who admits to being a pedophile on our doxxed several editors and tried to push this community to ban a user for the lulz?--Owlman (talk) 02:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Owlman, I reject your slippery slope reasoning. No one, including me, is proposing that we ban gender or sexual minorities, and I'd strongly oppose that. But pedophiles are beyond mere "festishists." I can't imagine that requires elaboration. Under the current circumstances I do not feel moved to permit posting from users who announce they are pedophiles. If you and others think Uk is prior to the recent issues, and need not be included in the policy I advocate, that I will listen to. But otherwise, no.---Mona- (talk) 03:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, Mona, even if we don't start bending to offsite pressure to ban certain users they will absolutely harass us to do just that which is why banning this user because of offsite harassment doesn't guarantee that the harassment will not continue or intensify. And I do not consider pedophilia to be a "fetish", but I was referring to those who may talk about their sex lives, e.g. BDSM. Just look at what offsite users were able to do to Goonie and you don't think they will go after David (who has a ED page) like they did with Ryu. People like this want to see us squirm.--Owlman (talk) 04:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Owlman, I understand, and even sympathize, with the principle you are articulating. Still, it is very hard for me to believe that users announcing they are, or have a strong interest in, pedophiles at this time suddenly show up is a large coincidence. Moreover, just because we can't remove all cause for harassment, doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't remove what appears to be a pretty obvious one. Recently, someone quickly banned an asshole who signed up with the name "Not a Zionist" purporting to be concerned about Zionists destroying this wiki. That, also, is bullshit. And I support that ban as well.---Mona- (talk) 05:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Leave it up to the mods?

When the problem user is behaving as Weaseloid describes, especially in the first two points, I strongly feel the matter should be handled by the mods in private back channels. Transparency is almost always the right choice, but the operative word there is "almost." In these cases holding a coop case simply feeds the behavior -- both on-site an -off -- and creates yet more possible targets for the malicious actors. Yes, it means accepting the mods' decision without much question, but in my view it's justified. And we elect the mods, presumably considering their judgment when we do---Mona- (talk) 20:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand why we want to ban user Ukuphendukela. WHY? I see some people complaining that this person claims to be a pedophile. So what? Are we going to ban people because of their sexual attractions that they cannot help having? Shouldn't gays and lesbians be banned too if this is the standard? It doesn't make any sense.

What has this person done that is so egregious? I am looking through this user's contributions page and I don't say anything particularly damning. What's the big deal? What does this have to do with anything? If there is a specific complaint against this user, please make it below. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

This all started with the late 2015 doxxing and the now banned Michaeldsuarez who is apparently an ED user. MDS choose to bring up Uk's previous username in the coop before the doxxing incident occurred and there were accusations that editors here defend pedophiles. Since these events happened so closely together there is an assumption that Uk is a sock who would bring offsite drama and harassment because he is a "self diagnosed" pedophile/hebephile.--Owlman (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that there is not enough evidence to convict this person of being a sock. Just because one user decided to throw another user under the bus doesn't mean we have to go along with it. And why is there "an assumption that Uk is a sock who would bring offsite drama and harassment because he is a "self diagnosed" pedophile/hebephile."? Why does that exist? Has this user ever doxxed anyone or brought about any off-site drama? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

It is mostly assumed from some circumstantial evidence which I see as heavily flawed. Another reason for people here to want him removed is the belief that this will relive us of offsite drama as "defending a pedophile" is a perfect scapegoat for our 'moral irreprehensibility'.--Owlman (talk) 02:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify: my post about what the mods should do outside of public viewing is not about whether we should ban this particular user. My position pertains to Weaseloid's initial setting forth of the coop case, and especially to the first two items in his list. However, given that that similar situation from last month all involved nonsense about pedophiles and the support we here have for them, including especially me (and in my case, also my "anti-Antisemitism"), those victimized by the offsite assholes should not be expected to provide further entertainment and grist for their vicious mill here in the coop. ---Mona- (talk) 03:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorte/Mona Dispute

Apparently this belongs here. Most of the parties involved know who they are and already know most of the backstory, but here's a summary: Mona and Sorte got into an edit war on the Noam Chomsky article, which has lasted for over a week. The 2 have reverted each other dozens of times, often with no or a poor explantion. Sorte has repeatedly harrassed Mona by calling her names and egging her on to ban him or fight with him (trolling).

The purpose of this particular case is to bring about a decision which stops the bad behavior of Sorte Slyngel. Evidence of this is all over the Saloon Bar and both Mona's and Sorte's talk pages. Sorte has been a real trouble-maker, at the expense of the community and the wiki. He has been unusually fixated on Mona for weeks. His dozens of reverts and his constant badgering of Mona (and to a lesser extent myself) have done nothing but hurt the community, diverting attention away from more important things and towards a petty conflict over Noam Chomsky.

Sorte Slyngel this evening: (Block log); 04:43 . . Sorte Slyngel (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Brenden (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 0×π seconds (about right) (account creation disabled) ‎(I may be a dick to Mona, but thank heavens I'm not a dick for Mona. You, however ...) He cannot and will not stop.---Mona- (talk) 04:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

A quote by one side

One side in this "debate" has said "He's an utter asshole who needs to be gone.". Please let that sink in for a second before you exclusively blame one side, or are about to do Mona's bidding... 146.185.147.55 (talk) 01:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Whose sock are you? How are things at Kiwi Farms these days?---Mona- (talk) 01:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Mona has had to deal with almost 2 weeks of vicious arguing with this person. It's understandable that both of them hate each other. Trying to impugne someone's credibility by saying "they called someone else an asshole" is not going to work. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

In the Saloon I set forth a long litany of abuse and bad faith spewing from Sorte Slyngel. Starting here. All of that pretty much pertains to his commentary at the Noam Chomsky article, but there is so much more that precedes it. But I wasn't going to write an entire treatise. But Pbfreespace3, I expect many to say none of this misbehavior violates the rules. If I thought otherwise I would have done this long ago. If a mod(s) won't step in to stop this, and stop all the banned/binned socks and KWF BoNs, and the few accounts they've registered for, nothing can be done. The problem has been the lack of rules to prevent obnoxious, bad faith users from polluting the wiki and driving valuable editors out. These types of users made Paravant so miserable he eventually became harmed by it all. He did prohibit calling pro-Palestinian editors "antisemties" as well as some other of the more vicious name-calling, but he's gone. No one stops that any longer.---Mona- (talk) 01:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

I ask that the mods/community agree to vandal-bin him or ban him temporarily if he reverts anything of Mona's on Israel/Palestine or Chomsky, or if he argues with Mona at all. This will stop his ability to cause general riff-raff and end the conflict on the Chomsky page. This fight has raged on the pages for too long; it is time it is brought here to end this dispute once and for all. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes

1. Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 01:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
2. For all the good it will do. All the BoNs and new accounts will vote. The Arisbochs, Avengers, and KWF accounts. So this is sort of futile.---Mona- (talk) 01:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
3. Reasons stated in my proposal. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
4. Somebody needs to back off, and I don't think it is Mona. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

   Thank you very much CCP. All these BoNs of Avenger/Arisboch or the Kiwi Farms people showing up -- and one has signed up with a Don'tTasemeBro name -- they are piling on and no one will stop them. I spent part of December very upset at what they were doing regarding my family, and now they are just allowed to romp around here and spew shit at and about me. No one in authority will make people who have already seriously abused me stop doing it, as long as we don't have DNA samples as 99.99% proof of who they are. So, hearing from decent and reasonable people is most appreciated.---Mona- (talk) 02:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

5. Ban him. брэндэн (talk) 02:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
6. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 02:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
7. Topic ban or more - he's just taken over from Avengeboch. Pippa (talk) 02:39, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
8. - EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
9. As time has progressed he has become more and more slimy just like the trolls that constantly appear out of nowhere in this space on the wiki. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

   They appear now more and more because of events last month, involving Gamergate, but which also included me and charges of antisemtism. They were fucking invited here. And now, they watch and play games to see what trouble they can start here, with a focus on me. No mod cares to do a thing about it. They can harass me, target my edits -- including helping out Sorte, as much as they like. No one gives a shit.---Mona- (talk) 01:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

   I still don't know why you expect special protections that no one else has. The mods don't protect me from them either. I wonder why that is...oh, that's right. Not their problem. --Castaigne2 (talk) 01:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

   Other have had it. For all his faults, Ryu deserved and was given protection from trolls. Kitsunlaine also has reason to not want all the BoN's coming here now. But at the moment they are most interested in targeting me. (Their good pal, the banned Arisboch, has announced he's be doing socks.) Of course that doesn't conern a thing like you. I'm talking to the people with normal moral development.---Mona- (talk) 02:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

   If Ryu had it, he shouldn't have. I won't let people have special protections. Unless we ALL get them. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. All I request is that all users be treated absolutely equally. --Castaigne2 (talk) 02:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

   Absolutely. No one should be afforded "special" protections. R's case is a difficult one to use as comparison, because of the utterly toxic nature of the issue he was narrow focused on. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 02:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

   No one should be subject to abuse on this wiki to the extent that's been demonstrated in this case. I don't see this case as narrow focused on Mona, but more on the nature and character of the site in general. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 02:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

   Depends on what you would call abuse, which is a purely subjective item. I could claim to being abused by Mona using her definition, but I wouldn't. --Castaigne2 (talk) 02:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

   I can sort-of understand what you're saying here, but I must respectfully disagree. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 02:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

   Castaigne is a serial abuser of other editors. He just a few weeks ago drove out a great editor. It's just how he's always been.---Mona- (talk) 02:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

10. --JorisEnter (talk) 17:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

No

1. No. This is written above by Pbfreespace3: „...ban him temporarily if he reverts anything of Mona's on Israel/Palestine or Chomsky, or if he argues with Mona at all. Argues with Mona at all? My dear fellow, it is nearly impossible to browse RW and not come across Mona and it very unlikely that you will agree with her. Of course you agree with her, but it seems you have not studied history. And why are we having this discussion here? Simply because Mona thew a tantrum and had a nervous breakdown. Or so she said. Pb I don't know long you have been here, but you do seem to have to learn the rules. For instance when you blocked me for not calling Mona — well whatever. That can be dug up. It's interesting how many people make their light shine here, but have apparently never had anything to do with me. As is, ask FuzzyCatPotato and he will confirm that I have promised a three weeks Chomsky silence. Cheers to all the benevolent souls assembled here Sorte Slyngel (talk) 03:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
2. No. Alternatively, we could ban Mona for being the problem here. Hipocrite (talk) 04:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

   Another pal of Avenger's and Arisboch's heard from. You want me outta here for the same reason they did: Israel.---Mona- (talk) 04:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

   Go pal around with some fucking terrorists, you nutjob freak. Hipocrite (talk) 04:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

   See people? I've been saying and saying, these hardcore Zionists are vicious and wholly unreasonable; only the GGers are worse. This one told me right after I joined that most people here love Israel and none of my edits would stand unless I too "think Israel is great." Well, I don't think that, and my position tends to be the majority here, so I get called all kinds of things by these types, including a "nutjob" who should "pal around with some fucking terrorists." Becasue they're just reasonable and civil that way.---Mona- (talk) 04:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

   No, you illiterate psycho, I did not say that. Hipocrite (talk) 04:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

   Yup. You sure enough did say that.---Mona- (talk) 04:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

   Provide a diff of me saying that, you inveterate liar. Hipocrite (talk) 04:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

   BTW, did you see the guidelines in the edit banner? Your not supposed to call others vicious names or otherwise insult them.---Mona- (talk) 04:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

   Fuck your guidelines. You and your ilk are everything destroying this website. Hipocrite (talk) 04:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

   Is this performance art? Some kind of parody of another user? --U12345 (talk) 09:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

   Sorry I called you names. I still think you are the problem. Best wishes, I guess. Hipocrite (talk) 13:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

   Mona, if you are so convinced about the nastiness of Zionists, I advise you to spend some time with their opponents. And I don't mean those you might find in a Boston Starbucks. No I mean the sheikhs of Qatar or some other place. But please, before you go there say something to the effect that you are atheist / gay / divorced or something to that effect. And as for GGers, I don't even know what that is supposed to be. Nor do I care. 95.90.213.32 (talk) 05:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

   Accepted. But please realize that it isn't even just that you insult me; it's that this wiki has a toxic atmosphere because of things like that. That kind of behavior is why TheRoadtoWiganPier just called it quits here. As I just posted about below. I'm not the problem. I don't behave like you do, or Sorte does, or Avenger and Arisboch did, and also Castaigne. I do aggressively defend my edits with facts and documentation, but I accept it when I'm outvoted -- which is rather infrequent. That I'm right so often is a by-product of sticking to what I know. That causes people like you, Castaigne etc. to say I'm arrogant and to think I'm superior etc. No. It is simply that in the rather narrow range of my editing interests I tend to have an almost encyclopedic knowledge. Outside of those areas, I'm a schlub.---Mona- (talk) 13:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

   Say BoN. Does this: http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=RationalWiki:Chicken_coop&diff=1614945&oldid=1614943 mean you are also that pizzaguy who is trying to vote?---Mona- (talk) 13:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

   Please do not act as if you don't deliberately provoke people. You do. You are nastier than me towards anyone you disagree with. I don't care how old you are. I don't care what degrees you have. I don't care how much you sanctimoniously moralize. I don't care that you worked with and are best buds with that hack attorney Greenwald, who likes to perform lawfare against those he personally doesn't like.You are neither dictator here, nor a mod, nor a setter of policy, and I and several others will not be ordered about by you as if we were some damn lapdog groveling at your feet. Enough. Now go think on your sins. --Castaigne2 (talk) 05:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

   I see. Well, while I'm busy destroying the wiki, the subject of this coop case just did this: (Block log); 04:43 . . Sorte Slyngel (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Brenden (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 0×π seconds (about right) (account creation disabled) ‎(I may be a dick to Mona, but thank heavens I'm not a dick for Mona. You, however ...) Like I said, the hardcore Zionists are beat in nastiness only by the GGers.---Mona- (talk) 04:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

   I still don't fully understand what exactly is proposed, but I think people should have a conversation instead of banning and blocking and fighting and stuff Pizzameister (talk) 02:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

   This user just signed up. I mean just now. For this. Who, oh who, might they be?---Mona- (talk) 02:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

   I signed up for unrelated reasons (I had been following this wiki for quite some time after I first found it), but recent changes is currently full with this... whatever it is... Pizzameister (talk) 02:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

   I don't vote on matters I admit to knowing nothing about -- including whether the conversations you propose have already occurred. I assure you, we are well past that point.---Mona- (talk) 02:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

   The proposition is to enact an order whereby if the user Sorte Slyngel edits any article related to the user Mona, Israel/Palestine, or Noam Chomsky articles, he is either banned for a short period (a few hours/days) or "vandal-binned", which means limited to one edit per 30 minutes. Does that make more sense, Pizzameister? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

   20 minutes to stick an oar in? Bit suspicious, that. Pippa (talk) 02:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

   What exactly do you mean, Pippa? The 30 minute ban, or something related to the length of the coop case? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

   I think s/he means the guy signed up 20 minutes ago.---Mona- (talk) 02:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

   Xactly. Pippa (talk) 02:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

   I still get a vote, right? There should not be a punishment. Or at the very least it should not be one-sided. If you watch Mona in this very coop case, she definitely deserves some punishment. Least of all for threatening to fill this wiki with her meatpuppets Pizzameister (talk) 03:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

   As of this time, until the mods have made a policy-wide decision, yes, your vote is still here.

   As for punishment, that would also be up to the mods. --Castaigne2 (talk) 03:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

   Sorry. Mods have decided; you get no vote. --Castaigne2 (talk) 00:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

3. Banned for being mean and disagreeing with the RationalWiki consensus. Nah. BTW this page is now impossible to follow; I had to dig around just to determine who we were voting on and why. Mona you are a good editor, and I largely agree with your I-P positions. However, the wiki must have dialectic conversation, if you can't handle disagreement then the internet is not the place for you. Tielec01 (talk) 02:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
4. ^^^^What Tielec said. Though I agree that Mona seems to have the long end of the stick on the factual matter (Sorte's rancour at Chomsky seems rather excessive and, his politics aside, Chomsky is actually regarded as a legitimate authority on linguistics - as far as I know). Sorte should probably also tone down the perfidy, but it would also be nice if Mona didn't go into hedgehog-mode when challenged, especially when questions are directed at her "icons" (e.g. Chomsky or Greenwald). The idea that Sorte should get a ban "if he argues with Mona at all" is frankly ludicrous, but a short term warning block(say, up to a few hours to basically send a "chill out" message) to call attention to his bad behaviour (excessively edit warring and perfidious bickering) might be in order, though this coop case might have had that effect already. Finally, I don't like the suggestions that moderators should be stepping in more as I perceive the mods' role as being an "emergency brake" and so far events haven't merited an emergency stop. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, if Mona is punished too

1. She has repeatedly insulted other members, de-sysoped others without reason, edit warred, locked pages to get her way. She's almost as bad as Sorte. CorruptUser (talk) 01:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

   You are not wrong, but Mona's frustration is understandable. It would be hypocritical of me to not extend her the same good faith I extended Ryulong in very similar circumstances. She is stressed out and exhausted for very personal reasons. Cut her some slack. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 01:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

   That's bullshit [in answer to CorruptUser]. I very seldom insult people. And nothing rising to the level of Sorte's abuse. I had reason for de-mopping ppl, The last time was an accident. And it was all long ago. I have NEVER locked a page to get my way. AgingHippie locked the page; I merely extended it, and tried to keep these Avenger/Arisboch/Kiwi Farm asshats who have HARMED ME out of my article discussions. Jesus. You did not go through from them what I did.---Mona- (talk) 02:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

   I do believe that " Avenger/Arisboch/Kiwi Farm asshats" is intended as an insult, one you have used repeatedly throughout this page. Also, "my article discussions" is a concept that does not exist. ħuman 19:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

   You never rose to my level because you can't see the funny side of things. That is why concepts like self-deprecation, mild jokes, understatements, overstatements allegories and so forth are out of your reach. Those are the professional writer's tools of trade among others, which makes me wonder why you call yourself a writer. You do know that there is a thing called allusion, but I've never seen you getting that right. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 04:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)Cheers

2. --Castaigne2 (talk) 00:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
3. I'm not sure I'd word it as a "punishment," but maybe it would be a good idea from all parties involved to take a break from the aforementioned articles. I'm not entirely sure if this is more about Mona or the articles, but maybe Mona taking a two week break from those articles might allow things to calm down a tad. I agree with binning Sorte, at least temporarily, perhaps permanently if s/he doesn't cool down after a ban period. Ayzmo^Cheers 15:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

   It's about me only insofar as Sorte stalks the articles I edit (and my user talk page) and spews abusive insults and has said he won't accept any documentation from me. I don't behave like that and it would not be right to bar me from the articles that are my major interest (but are not his, and he knows much less about it than I do -- he just doesn't like my POV) because he's been abusive and grossly unreasonable where I am concerned. I really wonder about your vote given that you appear to accept you don't even understand what the issues are.---Mona- (talk) 16:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

   Honestly, I don't feel I have much of hand in this game other than that it has caused a massive amount of chaos on here and, quite frankly, made Rationalwiki rather unbearable. I've been here for at least 4(?) years and haven't seen anything that has caused this much disruption. If nothing else that gives me a right to vote, regardless of how involved I have been (my comment about uncertainty meant I wasn't sure if Sorte would follow you if you started focusing on beeswax rather than Zionism/Chomsky for example). As I've said, I don't see it as a punishment. I'd see it as giving a break to the entire situation (in addition to blocking Sorte). I agree that Sorte has been unreasonable, I don't argue that in the least. I find it odd that you question my right to vote on the matter simply because I provided an alternative viewpoint. I'm sure several "yes" votes were just as uninvolved as me and I don't see you questioning their votes. Ayzmo^Cheers 19:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

   I didn't question your right to vote. I questioned the vote itself. Whether you change the wording for yourself or not, you are voting under a section that says I am also to be "punished." I haven't done anything to be punished for. The coop isn't a place we go to tell people to take a break because we think it would be good for them. There are currently about half a dozen people editing the Chomsky article and a major copy-edit is going on; I've had no serious problems with any of the others. The problem ends with Sorte. We have a vote going on a link embed, and if I lose that vote, the majority wins. I know a lot about Noam Chomsky's writings and politics; why should I should I be barred as a "punishment" from an article Sorte targeted only because I was there? (I'm waiting for a friend I worked with to get me citations to pre-Internet rightwing slams of Chomsky, which is somewhere on an old computer.) That's what I meant about your vote-- not that you don't have a right to vote, but that you are voting for me to also be punished when I have not done anything wrong, especially at that article.---Mona- (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Goat

Is there some magical answer that will stop the wikidrama? ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 15:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Nuke from orbit, or restrict IP to people that spend most of their time elsewhere. CorruptUser (talk) 15:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

^Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 15:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

^--Castaigne2 (talk) 00:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Ban everybody? (Note, this was not a serious proposal). But seriously, there appears to be more to the problem than what is happening right now... However. I don't think the solution should be banning or binning, because ultimately the side that does not dislike Zionism has to be heard as well. Because ultimately banning one side of a dispute (even if that side is in the minority) ends up diminishing the user-base. And no wiki can survive that in the long term. 95.90.213.32 (talk) 17:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Are you not a troll partipating here under two accounts: http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=RationalWiki:Chicken_coop&diff=1614945&oldid=1614943 Looks like you forgot which one was supposed to be talking there. So, are you Arisboch, Avenger, or one of the KWF sickos who harassed me and threatened to make calls to my family and their neighbors (after publishing their contact information)for being an "antisemite?"---Mona- (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Or he's someone who got logged out by the garbage that is the mediawiki cookie system. Hipocrite (talk) 22:39, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Final Consensus?

So far, we've got 9 straight yeses, 2 straight nos, and 3 yeses-with-provisions for Mona. Excluding the last, there is already a great majority, and a two-thirds majority is all that is needed for a consensus to be reached. Should we close now and enact the sanctions or wait for a few more days to witness more fighting, petty insults, and useless personal attacks? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The sooner this is resolved, the better. It's doing no one any good boiling over and festering. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 02:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

48 hours is the standard. Gives everyone time to make a vote. --Castaigne2 (talk) 02:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Last nite I thought it too soon. But it's not likely the strong majority would be overcome in another day. So, yes. We have voted that: "Sorte Slyngel will be vandal-binned or banned temporarily if he reverts anything of Mona's on Israel/Palestine or Chomsky, or if he argues with Mona at all." I suggest that include any article Mona edits, or he'll pick some part of an I-P article I technically didn't write and try to cause trouble that way. Then I revert him, he says "But she reverted me!" knowing I would. So to keep it simple, it should just be any I-P article I edit, before or after he does -- in addition to not arguing with me about edits anywhere. (I'm not going to care a shit about most of his other interests, which appear to be pretty diverse and with almost no overlap with my own.)---Mona- (talk) 02:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

48 hours is the standard. Gives everyone time to make a vote. It's not time yet. --Castaigne2 (talk) 02:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

But the plaintiff, prosecutor, monitor of the polls, judge, jury, and executioner has spoken. ħuman 18:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

No

None of the mods have weighed in on the vote and only 3 are aware of this coop's existence. 48 hours is surely not too much to ask. FuzzyCatPotato of the Congruent US Navy aircraft carriers (talk/stalk) 02:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Anyone coming to this page now will have no idea what's being voted on as everything seems to be rearranged back-to-front in a nonsensical order. What's the big idea? Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Now restored to original sequence (as far as I can tell). Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Result

Looks like there's consensus. He's ordered to leave Mona alone and stay away from I-P and related articles, under penalty of banishment. Do we sysoprevoke at this time? CorruptUser (talk) 02:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

This is apparently much of a problem. I gave FuzzyCat my word last night, that I would accept his breathing period and mentioned the day, when I could consider that I had anything more? Didn't think so.

Now, for a funny ending, I dare anyone to convince Mona that she is not only a trivial example of Homo sapiens — or Mulier sapiens to please her — and also get her to admitting that she isn't always right — or if you really want to take a huge risk that she's usually wrong on most things. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 02:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure. I was wrong about a rape trial in Israel. CorruptUser had the most recent facts, of which I had been unaware. Also, early in my tenure here I edited at the PETA article. My position was wrong because I had not kept up with PETA outside of the context of civil libertarian concerns about animal rights activists. After that, I determined to stay well within topics and areas in which I am confident of my facts. That's a good idea for everybody.---Mona- (talk) 02:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm all for topic banning him but this isn't long enough for the coop case - seems to be under two hours. Wait. Pippa (talk) 02:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Being an insomniac isn't particularly convenient, but when night falls, you have an opportunity to check out what goes on here. So, Mona, you've been wrong twice. I applaud you. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 02:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Consensus is not reached after mere hours

Now I have absolutely no skin in the game here, the only thing I would want to have is more, and above all, more civilised debate, but does this wiki really consider consensus to have emerged after but a few hours? I do think we should debate a bit longer. As of now I have not heard any arguments that have convinced me of the utter vileness of the accused. Pizzameister (talk) 02:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree with you on the time but wonder at your 20 minutes on the wiki comment - just sayin' Pippa (talk) 02:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I have experience at other wikis. And I have also read some articles on this wiki for quite some time. I have only recently decided to edit myself... Pizzameister (talk) 02:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The community has seen this whole thing play out over the past weeks, whether they have been vocal about it or not. The 'vileness of the accused' can be viewed through that user's contribution history. Also, you are going to complain about a lack of time to discuss the topic, when you have just joined yesterday? I think that's hypocritical if you don't mind me. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

And why do you jump in first thing to vote -- VOTE -- on coop case about which you admit you know nothing? You have no background on this matter and it's unreasonable to expect us to explain to you all the backstory involved. You should abstain. Why isn't it your first priority to edit some articles?---Mona- (talk) 02:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Joined 20 minutes before the coop edits; sock of someone? (it's easy: Sock of Pippa (talk) 02:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Stop telling people what they should be doing. Your dictatorial tendencies when people don't grovel before you are not becoming. --Castaigne2 (talk) 02:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Correct. Consensus is not reached within a couple of hours. This will remain up for 48 hours; I will personally make sure of it. --Castaigne2 (talk) 02:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

As to the above accusations, I have been reading things on this wiki before. But I have not made an account. This ridiculous coop case is one of the things that have made me sign up for an account. I hope that is still allowed. And I still hope people could talk to each other instead of this screaming that is going on around here... And these accusations... Pizzameister (talk) 02:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

It's fine. I don't care when you registered. Neither do the majority of everyone else. --Castaigne2 (talk) 03:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to remove the vote of the person who just joined the website 35 minutes ago? I think so, as it could easily be a sockpuppet account created by someone else to tip the scales of the vote. I think, seeing as Pizzameister has admitted he knows little about the case, that his vote should be removed. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

No. That's not what we do here. --Castaigne2 (talk) 03:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think any new accounts, say, newer than a month, should be allowed to vote. The likelihood is too high they are socks and/or from KWF. And Castaigne, we can do it here however we vote to.---Mona- (talk) 03:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Then request a policy change in the appropriate venue. I'm a bit tired of your unilateral declarations that we must be obedient to how you think things should be run. Allowing new accounts to vote has been the way it's been since this wiki is founded. We are not changing it just because it doesn't meet your demands. --Castaigne2 (talk) 03:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

So off-site brigades could jump in and control the vote? That's dangerous territory, Casta. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 03:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

To repeat - Then request a policy change in the appropriate venue. I'm a bit tired of Mona's unilateral declarations that we must be obedient to how she think things should be run. Allowing new accounts to vote has been the way it's been since this wiki is founded. We are not changing it just because it doesn't meet Mona's demands. --Castaigne2 (talk) 03:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

What part of "we don't do that here" did you not understand? Aceⁱ⁹ 03:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I understood it perfectly. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 03:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Excellent. Then that's the end of that silly idea. Aceⁱ⁹ 03:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand it at all. It was very vague and was a deflection. Should I create a sockpuppet account to sway the vote? No, I won't, but there is a very legitimate problem with allowing people to join the site for the purpose of voting a certain way in a coop case that has nothing to do with them. The community should vote on this matter, and the community means everyone who is a member of the site at the time the coop case was brought. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I can get a legion of socks here in 30 minutes. Shall I? Tons of my Twitter pals would have fun here.---Mona- (talk) 03:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I see. So, since you and your minion PB can't get your way, you're actually threatening to brigade? Are you seriously doing so? Please be aware that I'm documenting this. --Castaigne2 (talk) 03:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Castaigne: "Please be aware that I'm documenting this" Oh my goodness! And will it then go on my permanent record? Anyway, it's now been made clear to you, I trust, that your notion the mods had to tell us what the voting rules are is "complete bollocks" (as Weaseloid put it elsewhere). Please be aware that I'm documenting that. Also, Weaseloid has done a superb job of pruning and weeding the Chomsky article; a copy-editing overhaul it urgently needed. Frankly, I have nothing more to add to it, except for one or two examples of of pre-Internet wingnut slamming of Chomsky. I'm waiting on someone for those.---Mona- (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Whatever gives you moral orgasms, Mother Mona Superior. I don't give a fuck about Chomsky, considering he's a basket case outside of his linguistics expertise. --Castaigne2 (talk) 00:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

What planet do you live on, Ace? - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 03:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

We do not overthrow the policies of the wiki just because they happen to be momentarily inconvenient.

I should note that Ace and I perpetually disagree on things, so if we're agreeing now, one should take that into consideration. --Castaigne2 (talk) 03:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

This is a sitewide policy decision affecting everything from bans, to article deletes and everything else that is ever voted on. You don't just enact a rule on a whim and expect it to be enforced. Aceⁱ⁹ 03:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

+1 --Castaigne2 (talk) 03:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

"Inconvenience" is a funny way to say "Blatantly undermined and driven holes through to serve an offsite agenda". - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 03:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

If you have proof to provide, then do it. But this is not ParanoiaWiki, no matter what Mona wants. Or you want. Or anyone. --Castaigne2 (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Saying something like Mona just did is really not helping her case... Pizzameister (talk) 03:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Policy shite

Only accounts 30 days old or older will have their votes counted

This will prevent all the Avenger/Arisboch and KWF socks from voting. Like having someone sign up and twenty minutes later their first edit is a a vote is here, as just happened. This will keep the KWF and other malicious actors from being incentivized to flock to this site and coop case.---Mona- (talk) 03:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes

1. There is a very serious problem with allowing people to join the site for the purpose of voting a certain way in a coop case that has nothing to do with them. The community should vote on this matter, and the community means everyone who is a member of the site at the time the coop case was brought. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

   IMPORTANT: "In order to vote in policy votes, which seek to change the Community Standards or similar official policy documents, or penalty votes, which seek to penalize (or change existing penalties for) a user, you must have at least 75 total edits and a registration date at least three months prior to the conclusion of the vote." This effectively means it is against the rules for brand new users to vote, as the case is about a penalty for a user.

   Kaboom! Pbfreespce3 wins the Internet today!---Mona- (talk) 03:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

   Irrelevant - No evidence the user is a sockpuppet. Aceⁱ⁹ 03:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

   You missed this part - " Hence the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies. Please keep in mind that the standards below are only an approximation of the site's working practices."--Castaigne2 (talk) 03:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

2. ---Mona- (talk) 03:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
3. We don't need any trolls editing this page. --JorisEnter (talk) 17:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

No

1. this is a major policy decision that, if enacted here, will need to be considered in everyvoting action - site wide. Therefor Mods rule or GTFO. Aceⁱ⁹ 03:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

   And what part of "We welcome new editors" do you fucks not understand? People can edit wherever they see fit. If it is voting on a Coop case then so be it...until such a time as policy is changed. Aceⁱ⁹ 03:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

   You're wrong here: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Community_Standards#Voting This clearly states that users must have at least 75 total edits to vote on a penalty for a user. That means Pizzameister cannot vote here. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

   You missed this part - " Hence the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies. Please keep in mind that the standards below are only an approximation of the site's working practices."--Castaigne2 (talk) 03:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

2. --Castaigne2 (talk) 03:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
3. Apparently someone deleted my vote. I hereby express my mild discontent about this behaviour. Pizzameister (talk) 05:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
4. Kugelschreiber (talk) 00:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
5. I don't think this is the proper venue for discussing changes to policy, such as it is around here. The last thing we need to do is decide policy decisions when HCM is happening. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 02:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

   Since when did this happen?брэндэн (talk) 07:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

6. Not the appropriate venue for such a change. You can't make new rules in the process of a vote simply because you don't like the goings on during a vote. Ayzmo^Cheers 16:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

RationalWiki:Community Standards:

Franchise

In order to vote in policy votes, which seek to change the Community Standards or similar official policy documents, or penalty votes, which seek to penalize (or change existing penalties for) a user, you must have at least 75 total edits and a registration date at least three months prior to the conclusion of the vote.

Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

And another one goes: TheRoadtoWiganPier

He can't take the bullshit here -- and he most decidedly does not mean me. He had told me early after my arrival here that the mods will do absolutely nothing about abusive and harassing users and that the site was falling to the level of the worst of any of the Internet cesspools because of what is permitted here. So, he just quit. I should add, he also reverted Sorte Slyngel with some frequency and found Sorte's treatment of me "unpleasant." He also used the word "stalking." I'm hoping he won't mind if I quote just short bit of his email to me:

RW is not salvageable and not worth the effort Mona. It’s an unpleasant place and not one I wish to be associated with in any [way] for any longer.

I could compile a list of the good people, including mods, we've seen fleeing this place since last fall.The community has to decide whether circumstances will be allowed to continue such that hard workers, including tech-savvy ones the site could use, are to continue to be driven out so that nasty users can romp and stomp as they please.---Mona- (talk) 13:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Users join & leave all the time. We don't need to wring our hands & declare a state of emergency every time it happens. & You're lumping together together people who have left for rather different reasons. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think so. The "state of emergency" isn't that. It's an ongoing state around here. I've heard similar from other editors by email, that they aren't going to participate as much, and will avoid the topics that attract the worst assholes, which means GG and I-P. Except for Castaigne; he will abuse the hell out of anyone just for shits and grins, as he did with Carpetsmoker, which drove CS out. And I am also close to just saying fuck it. This place is a toxic pit where people at the level of youtube-commenters can join up and spew bilge as they like. Just so long as they don't edit war or violate the other minimal rules here. They are free to make the experience here massively unpleasant for others, and they do.---Mona- (talk) 14:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

This is a bit rich coming from you considering your history. CorruptUser (talk) 14:39, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Non sequitur. Talk page disagreements about my documentation of McKinney proves, what? I didn't spew insults at anyone. As is usual for me, I simply insisted on documentation for claims about people. Whether she is deemed a "loon" or not, the things this wiki writes about her should be accurate and honest. In any event, I fail to see how any of this is relevant to this discussion.---Mona- (talk) 15:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

You didn't document crap. You pulled some weird source declaring that Bush knew about 911 in advance or something, and both roadtowiganpar and paravant told you to, and I quote, either "shit-bag on some other site" or "fuck right off". And now you are here complaining that these two have been "driven off of rational wiki". And the worst part is your ego is too malformed to see it. CorruptUser (talk) 15:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

We've been through this before. I DOCUMENTED all of my claims. And TRWP and others eventually came to see that I could. In any event, both emailed me about their reasons for leaving, somewhat extensively. (We ended up friends) It's not me. It's what I said.---Mona- (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Adding: I did just read that whole thing. I'd been here for three weeks at that point. It wasn't much longer after that that TRWP and Paravant both realized I really do mean it about documentation. If you can provide a credible source for Proposition X (and it's relevant), and it's not contested by reasonable other sources, it stands as fact. And, if I can document a relevant fact with a reliable source, that should stand as well. That's my approach, on everything. It took some time for people here to get used to me and see that I am in fact totally evidence-based. Once they did, all was well with the reasonable people. Including TRWP and Paravant, with whom I ended up friends. ---Mona- (talk) 15:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

If you want a great example of what's driving people away this petty obnoxious pedantic dickering would be great to reference. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I have to ask this: When did Mona join? I am not arguing cum hoc ergo propter hoc, but it would be interesting for this debate to know when she joined. Pizzameister (talk) 17:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Her first edit was on August 13, 2015. 172.98.67.117 (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

And the problems started when, you said? Pizzameister (talk) 19:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually the I-P discussions started when an extremely pro-Israel BoN started posting videos as their only refs and purporting human rights abuses as acceptable.--Owlman (talk) 22:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes Owlman, that one became Avenger, and with his pal Arisboch and a few others, they were gatekeeping all the I-P related articles. They announced no edits that I wanted would stand. That was bullshit, and I made it my business to break through it and found that a majority was of my POV (more or less). They never got over that.---Mona- (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear Arisboch/Avenger-sock-who-also-posts-here-as-a-BoN, there have long been extensive problems here related to Gamergate articles. All kinds of shitfests. You already know that. You also already know that the Israel-Palestine topic was always touchy here (as it is everywhere), and that when I joined, Avenger and Arisboch told me point blank they would not allow to stand any edits they didn't like. Ever. But you see, it turned out that when I pressed ahead anyway, there was a (more or less) majority for my perspective. You both hated that with the heat of a thousand suns, and proceeded to get yourselves, blocked, binned and one of you is now perma-banned, the other perma-binned. Both of you exhibited great hubris in arrogating the authority to tell me and the wiki what could and could not be said about anything I-P related. And here you are still, having learned nothing.---Mona- (talk) 20:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Mona I don't even know what you are on about. It appears as if you are trying to bully / harass / intimidate / block other users so far until they disappear from "your" precious wiki. Well, Mona, I don't know what those users ever did to you, but maybe, just maybe, you should ask yourself what your part in all that was. Trust me in this: The world is not out to get you. Nor is it out to get me. Pizzameister (talk) 21:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I guess you wish to pretend that FR history isn't there. You got your accounts confused and posted one when you meant to use the other. The "other" initially asked why "your" vote wasn't being counted; you quickly changed it to "you" asking the same question. Can you explain that?---Mona- (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

What? What the hell is "FR history"?Pizzameister (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

For the third time, Mr. Who Me? http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=RationalWiki:Chicken_coop&diff=1614945&oldid=1614943

We have socks of banned/binned user with multiple accounts

Pizzameister sought to vote in the coop but was deemed ineligible. He knows all about what is going on in that coop case, and the parties involved. But when his vote was stricken, he made the mistake of asking why "my vote" was stricken -- using a BoN account also participating here, http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=RationalWiki:Chicken_coop&diff=1614945&oldid=1614943 A mistake he tried to quickly change.
Isn't it time for the everyone, including the mods, to conclude that all these new accounts who head right for articles or coop cases where I am involved are obviously Arisboch, Avenger, or some of those Kiwi Farm derelicts whom Arisboch ranted with about my purported antisemtism? How likely is it that good faith new accounts are going to jump right into a coop case and/or articles pertaining to I-P where I am active? I've been a victim of extreme harassment from these people and should not have to endure them coming back after me here. That episode last December was deeply upsetting for me, badly. They, including Arisboch, were pushing all this vile crap about me in the context of publishing my sons's phone number, and those of his neighbors. They instructed all to call my son and his neighbors to tell them vicious things about me.
Enough!
Please mods, get control of this situation. You can't possibly want this place to be inundated with all these bogus accounts, which in great likelihood are circumventing ban or perma-bin, or are coming from KWF as pals of Arisboch's.---Mona- (talk) 22:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks like standard issue accidental editing when logged out. Hipocrite (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

It also looks like a bunch of socks all signing up to head where I edit, and to coop cases pertaining to me. Why do you suppose that is? There is no way I should be expected to put up with a bunch of Arisbochs/Avengers, or their Kiwi Farm pals heading right for me, after what was done to me -- involving my fucking family -- last month.---Mona- (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

What % accuracy do you believe you have in this sock-of-banned-user spotting, and what % accuracy would be acceptable for you to be blocking them? I know for a fact you are wrong in one instance. Hipocrite (talk) 22:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I would say the fact that there have been multiple accounts/IPs created here in the past 24 hours since this coop case started indicates there is at least a 50% chance each new user is a sockpuppet: they have almost all flocked to Mona or this coop case with no logical explanation whatsoever other than "to participate"(pizzameister). I would say that in a sensitive coop case such as this, we should not allow brand new people to participate; we should only allow prior community members who are affected by this case to take part. When there are already several essentially-known sock IPs, this further raises the likelihood of someone being a sockmaster who has diabolical intentions (Avenger or Arisboch) Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

That's fine. Talking about blocking them for 3.6 months and what not. Seems to be a bit excessive to basically x out possible editors with a 50% false positive rate. Hipocrite (talk) 23:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

How about 1 day? Or until the coop case is over? How about we don't block them but prevent them from editing the coop case? Would you be willing to accept any of these proposals, Hipocrite? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd vote for "just ignore them," but semiing this page would work, as would segregating their contributions, or just making note of Template:Spas. Hipocrite (talk) 23:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Then where there is 50% likelihood, when they show up where I edit tell them they have to stay away from any I-P pages during their probationary period. Explain it however one wants. Otherwise, there is every incentive for them to continue making new accounts to bypass banning and/or harass.---Mona- (talk) 23:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I asked you what your false-positive sock detection rate was and asserted that I know for a fact you got at least one totally wrong. Hipocrite (talk) 23:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Will you at least accept that no accounts or IPs created after the start of this coop case should be allowed to participate in any aspect of it? I'm sure Mona would be willing to accept this as a temporary measure to prevent voter fraud, which appears to be occuring here. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:Not a vote. Hipocrite (talk) 23:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Can't we simply protect the page (autoconfirmed only)? Most non-AC but still genuine users won't really know what's going on here, anyway.--JorisEnter (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd say it makes more sense to discuss whatever "editing privileges" we want to place on this page at another time, not during the middle of a "case", and instigated by one of the litigants.

And it certainly might make sense to have that discussion. Later. ħuman 19:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

BLOCK WAR!

And not ironically.
Could one of the mods fix it, please? Hipocrite (talk) 23:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

THAT I agree with. There are never any fucking mods around. WE have SIX. And they seem very uninterested in protecting a victim, includsing the mod who invited these assholes to pay attention to us and me.---Mona- (talk) 23:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Mods are not here to Gestapo for you, Mother Mona Superior.

Fix it how? By unblocking Pizzameister? An account that the user admits was created due to the coop case being opened, for the purpose of voting in the coop case? "Now I have absolutely no skin in the game here"-Pizzameister "This ridiculous coop case is one of the things that have made me sign up for an account."-Pizzameister

He OPENLY ADMITS he came here to sway the coop case vote? What clearer evidence do we need that Pizzameister is a sockpuppet? He is. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Evidence in the fossil record strongly suggests a connection to Avenger. I won't go digging it up just now, but neither one of them edits from Estonia. Second chances are cool with me, but rehabilitation is contingent upon good behavior. SmartFeller (talk) 14:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

blockwarring is unhelpful. I know you're new here and all, but it's not how we do. Hipocrite (talk) 23:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

What's helpful is preventing brand new users from swaying the votes of a coop case. Will you agree that they should not be able to vote or talk here on this page? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

No, but I'll defer to the judgement of the mods. Hipocrite (talk) 23:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

You know the word "trigger?" That's what happens to me when these fuckers show up, just by happenstance doncha know, to argue with other Zionists against me. All of a sudden there's quite a few. Most of them, if not all, are as I describe them to be. And I fucking shouldn't have to put up with it.---Mona- (talk) 23:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Please don't make trigger warning jokes here - it's totally insensitive to victims of PTSD. If you are a diagnosed PTSD victim, an unmoderated forum on the internet talking about sensitive subjects is probably not a safe space - I could recommend other forums less likley to trigger you. Hipocrite (talk) 23:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not a fucking joke. I have PTSD regarding the death of a teen child, and those shitheads sought to harass my son and his neighbors. But I guess expecting to be protected from targeting by such cretins is more than the mods or anyone here can think about, much less do. But even without my issues about kids dying, no one should have to be subjected to these bottom-feeding assholes.---Mona- (talk) 01:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

A joke? Listen freak, I lost a teen son in an accident, and now your freak friends were after my other son, and his neighbors. And it made me have a mini-meltdown. One does not anticipate THAT from participating at a goddam wiki. Worse, one expects her colleagues aren't going to make her deal with the socks of her abusers. Jesus Christ, some fucking joke. The joke here is the "mods."---Mona- (talk) 01:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

If you have a mental condition that makes normal editing on a mostly unmoderated wiki/forum a problem, then you really need to a) seek help for this issue and b) not subject yourself to this situation. I say this in all seriousness.

Secondly, it is not the problem of RationalWiki to make a "safe space" to cater to you. We're not a mental wellness facility; we are not psychiatrists. Personally, I prefer pharmacology to solve the problems you are having, but that's a personal decision. But please do not place the onus on US to solve your mental issues and safeguard your mental wellbeing. --Castaigne2 (talk) 01:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, please do not delete your comments. --Castaigne2 (talk) 01:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Fuck you, Castaigne. Having PTSD related to the death of a CHILD SHOULD NOT BE IMPLICATED BY EDITING A WIKI. If it is, that wiki is allowing what should not be allowed.---Mona- (talk) 01:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

We'll have to disagree on should. That which is not absolutely forbidden is absolutely permitted. If you think that should be changed, I recommend a policy suggestion to the mods. --Castaigne2 (talk) 02:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Castaigne: She's right, her personal life shouldn't be involved here.

Mona: I don't care about your personal life, whatever is going on in it is both none of my business and no reason for the rest of us to have to put up with you. CorruptUser (talk) 01:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you in both cases. --Castaigne2 (talk) 02:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

You're making yourself look worse. I'd politely advise waiting for the mods to weigh in first. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

If you're triggered by BoNs, I recommend that you turn off your computer and seek professional help. Unmoderated forums will not help your condition. --Castaigne2 (talk) 01:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, cuz it happens all the time that BoNs are heading right for me from a place where a banned editor was encouraging them in plans to harass my kid, and tell him and his neighbor vicious things about me. Why, any wiki should be glad to have them. If, that is, the wiki is run by a bunch of Castaignes. In which case, it would be a sociopathic pit.---Mona- (talk) 01:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Except I'm not a sociopath, as I am able to form emotional relationships with other people. --Castaigne2 (talk) 02:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Pizzameister's vote has been stricken because it's ineligible. What else is it doing that can't be ignored? If you're worried that this brand new account has enough clout to "sway" a vote it can't participate in, you should try worrying about something more important, or maybe not worry so much. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

"It" is posting at talk pages where I edit. :"It" made a beeline for a coop case involving my main Zionist protagonist. This is it. A fucking moderator -- A MODERATOR -- invited these cretins to pay attention ot us and me. And now, with one of their supporters here banned, no one gives a shit if they can make as as many new accounts as they like and target me. Fuck most of you.---Mona- (talk) 23:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

"It" has that right as an editor. Unless you can make a successful coop case for banning. --Castaigne2 (talk) 01:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Mona, heed my advice... Anyway, I think she means that Pizzameister has been posting on the Chomsky talk page, which Mona edits a lot. I think what Mona is calling for is a temporary ban, but I could be wrong with my interpretation. I would like that disciplinary action be taken against Pizzameister too. It could be a sockpuppet, since it has an unusual fixation on everything Mona. We know there have been several other sockpuppets over the past few days that have had to be blocked. Seeing as this one came here for the original purpose of voting in a Mona-related coop case, I think it's a sockpuppet, and that it should be banned for the duration of the coop case, or at least a day. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

ADDING: People won't even let me page protect. It should be at sysop=level where I edit or talk about the articles. (Same should be done for Kitunlaine, for similar reaons.)THAT would disincentivize them from making accounts to come here and do that shit. But no. RW has traditions and even to protect a moderator-generated harassment of me involving my kids, and a fucking so-called "banned" user, I can't do anything to keep these pricks away from me.---Mona- (talk) 23:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

You, uh, you could go outside. 144.118.228.221 (talk) 00:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Fuck off, BoN. You have one edit. This was it. And the Ariskiwi you rode in on.---Mona- (talk) 00:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

It should fucking NOT be protected where you edit. You are no better than anyone else here. You do not get special privileges no else has. --Castaigne2 (talk) 01:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I added my two cents to the talk page of that Chomsky guy because he popped up in recent changes a lot. I probably would have done the same about pretty much every other topic. I don't have anything against Mona nor anybody else here. And for what it's worth I think the overlap between Zionists and this other group (whatever it is) is rather small. Pizzameister (talk) 00:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to reiterate what Castaigne mentioned above: it is not the problem of RationalWiki to make a "safe space" to cater to you. This is an open wiki that invites people who disagree with "us" to join in the discussion. That means that all manner of people one has difficulty with are likely to turn up and get in one's face. If one cannot handle such an environment, there are plenty of "safe spaces" on the internet, with varying degrees of member protection operating. This is not one of them.

This is why blocking, banning, hatred of drive-by BoNs, and worrying about sockpuppets are severely frowned upon.

I am not sure exactly how to express this, but I am only reading this page because of various mod alerts. Otherwise I would either ignore it or get out the popcorn.

So take my opinion as being from where it is probably coming. ħuman 19:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Moderator Decision

[moderator fascist headgear on] I see Pizzameister literally created their account for the express purpose of stirring up shit here. I figure that's enough shit for now, and have used this shiny [OPPRESSION INTENSIFIES] button to offer them 314,159 seconds to consider matters without the shitstirring. Now you can go back to killing each other like the respectable editors of long tenure you all are. If some fuckwit unblocks him again, too bad, I'm going to bed shortly - David Gerard (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

You may be looking for * dons Mod Hat * 
. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 00:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Second hat doffed

PSA: Make your vote and go the fuck away. This page is scarred enough already. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 02:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Fuzzy, I think you meant "donned." SmartFeller (talk) 14:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Rrragh

Kindly advise Castaigne to leave me alone and stop collapsing all my commentary.---Mona- (talk) 01:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

This is not directed at you. --Castaigne2 (talk) 01:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Please stop collapsing paragraphs in this page. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 01:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

An I-P related page, (or Kistunlaine also, if she wishes to, on GG/SJW pages) may be sysop-protected, as well as it's talk page, for 90 days, if a BoN or new account starts editing or arguing in opposition to Mona. This will remove all incentive for the sudden increase of BoNs and new accounts that are likely to be banned or binned users, or fellow-travelers from, um, elsewhere. (The doxers and harassers.)

Yes

1. Victims shouldn't have to be re-victimized.---Mona- (talk) 02:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

No

1. Is this a joke? If so it's pretty funny. Tielec01 (talk) 02:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

   Yeah, Teilco, I laughed and laughed a the attacks on me and my family, and am delgihted they are now swamping where I edit. Yeah, a million laughs. Because I should just accept further harassment cuz it's funny, amirite?---Mona- (talk) 03:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

   The mods won't act. Nothing. The idiocy of one brought it to me (and only a few days ago he told me "they" are still all talking about me), and now neither he nor any other mod(s) will stop this.---Mona- (talk) 03:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

   No, she is not joking, and no, she doesn't/refuses to understand that this is not the place for policy proposals. EDIT: THIS COMMENT WAS DELETED THREE TIMES BY MONA EVEN AFTER SHE WA ADCVISED THAT SHE WAS UNILATERALLY DELETING IT. AS SHE WAS ADVISED OF THIS THREE TIMES DELIBERATELY, PLEASE ASSUME THAT SHE DID SO MALICIOUSLY. BECAUSE JESUS FUCKING CHRIST, LADY.--Castaigne2 (talk) 03:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

   You kept deleting my coop case. I told you to take your comment out of it, or I'd have to keep reverting it as well as automatic.---Mona- (talk) 03:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

   LIE. I didn't delete it. I put it under a collapse. SECOND LIE. This is a policy proposal, not a fucking coop. --Castaigne2 (talk) 03:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

2. NO. This is not a coop case. This is a POLICY DECISION that you are proposing. Policy decisions are not decided by fucking coop. Why do you not follow this? Are you incapable of understanding? Did you do this professionally, contradicting the decisions of a jury or a judge? "Your sustained decision to the objection to my question is OVERRULED, Judge, because I have made a moral ruling that the Rules of Civil Procedure don't apply here." --Castaigne2 (talk) 03:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

   This is a matter of how to treat a small sector of new users for a brief time in an exigent situation. I seek community support to do this. That is a coop matter. I've no interest in a policy change.---Mona- (talk) 03:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

   If it applies to more than one person, it's not a FUCKING COOP, Mona. Coop = ONE. Policy = MORE THAN ONE. Simple fucking math. If I wanted to open a case against you and PBFreeSpace and Kitsunelaine, that would be THREE SEPARATE COOPS and THREE SEPARATE VOTES. --Castaigne2 (talk) 03:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

   Castaigne, do you realize that for days now you've been taking every opportunity to add stress and rancor, as well as bad faith bullshit about what is supposedly only a the mods turf -- anything that will cause me further stress and anxiety. Why do you behave like this? I simply do not deserve it. I went thru enough last month. All I'm doing is going to the community -- my community -- to seek relief. Can't you please, please just leave me alone? (We've done more than one person at the coop before. WE still are, in the Sorte case, one option is to include me in "punishment.")---Mona- (talk) 03:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

   No, I'm doing this in good faith. If another editor made the same exact actions as you, I'd fucking do the goddamn same. I'm just sick of your martyring attitude, your wikilawyering, and your assumption that you are somehow due special consideration because of whatever reason you decide is valid at the moment. You are not a special snowflake and I will not treat you as one. You get the same as everyone else who does what you do.

   Let me be clear - I do this in good faith and with a clear conscience. If a relative of mine were acting like you have been, they would already be sedated and under a 3-day observation in a psych ward. I get that you're probably mad with grief over whatever, but that cuts no slack with me. --Castaigne2 (talk) 03:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

3. We're not going to build special policies around individual users & the pages they frequent. If & when a page becomes a war zone or vandal zone, it may need to be protected - regardless of the page's subject or what editors are working on it. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
4. What Weaseloid said.--ZooGuard (talk) 10:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
5. Third to Weasloid. Ayzmo^Cheers 17:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
6. NO. Strongest possible oppose. One step closer to the bottomless bureaucracy that is wikipedia. One thing about RW even our opponents respect is we don't have page-after-page and noticeboard-after-noticeboard of wannabe lawyers debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. – Sarah (HH) 18:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
7. NO. Rationalwiki is not a "safe space" for the thin-skinned. ħuman 19:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Goat

1. Honestly I think the site would be better if BONs were banned entirely from everywhere. If you can't be arsed to even create an account, what are the odds you've got anything worthwhile to say? I wouldn't go so far as to ban non-sysops from editing controversial topics like I-P or GG, as in this proposal however. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Ban the following users for a week

Castaigne, Mona, and Sorte. Mona and Castaigne have been having a hissy for a while now. Sorte is, well, he's Sorte. Give them all a weeklong vacation and see if they calm down. CorruptUser (talk) 04:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

You really should set that up as three separate votes. --Castaigne2 (talk) 04:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh god no. Not another vote. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 04:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Let me channel Allie Brosh. ALL THE VOTES! --Castaigne2 (talk) 04:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Fine then. CorruptUser (talk) 04:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Why are we voting on this when a mod can just do this. If you are going to ban them then just ban them all at once; it may be better this way.--Owlman (talk) 05:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I know you're fed up with these three (you're not the only ones), but seriously, a week's ban? So far it's merely a case of the usual RW bickering although the level of tediousness has gone above average. If the three editors keep up their feud, then yes, we might consider grounding them, but I hope they'll take the very fact that this suggestion has been raised as the warning it is and chill out for a while. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I already raised it above and was basically told that I didn't have a right to contribute because I'm not involved enough. Ayzmo^Cheers 13:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Ban Mona for a week

Give her time to calm down.

Yes

1. CorruptUser (talk) 04:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
2. Sounds great. --Castaigne2 (talk) 04:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
3. Can we ban her for longer? Her antisemitism is rather vile. брэндэн (talk) 07:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
4. EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

No

1. For now. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
2. I don't believe Mona has done anything worthy of a ban. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
3. Per Zack Martin. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 11:59, 28 January 42016 AQD (UTC)
4. ... and, in passing: claims that she is "antisemitic" are unsupported bullshit. SmartFeller (talk) 14:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
5. --ZooGuard (talk) 15:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
6. For FFS. Fine I'll stay out of the coop. Last month happened, then all these attacks from Sorte, then Castaigne decided to also target me just because, after he was done with Carpetsmoker (he kept reverting me at the CAIR article saying I was "fellating" them. WTF?) It shouldn't be that stressful just to edit articles here. But friends here say I'm overwrought, which is likely so, so I'll stay out of the coop for now.---Mona- (talk) 16:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Ban Castaigne for a week

Tell him to piss off for a while

Yes

1. CorruptUser (talk) 04:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
2. брэндэн (talk) 07:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
3. Dude is tits-on-a-boar useless. SmartFeller (talk) 14:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

No

1. For now. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
2. He's undoubtedly been plenty of an ass to warrant telling him to piss off for a while, but I don't think it really merits a ban of serious length (yet). 142.124.55.236 (talk) 12:04, 28 January 42016 AQD (UTC)
3. --ZooGuard (talk) 15:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Goat

1. Depending on which one gets more votes, I'll change my vote to the one with less votes. Why? Because I don't take myself seriously. --Castaigne2 (talk) 04:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

   That's OK. Nobody else does either. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

   Easy for you to say Weaseloid. You don't have him following you around mindlessly reverting your legal analysis and saying your "fellating" CAIR. And on and on like that. I'd really like to know how I can be expected to productively edit with that kind of harassment?---Mona- (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Ban Sorte for a week

Wait, didn't we...too many votes!

Force them all to live together in a log cabin for a winter, and learn a heartwarming lesson about the importance of teamwork

1. CorruptUser (talk) 04:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
2. I've always wondered what human flesh tastes like. Donner Party for the win! --Castaigne2 (talk) 04:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
3. If only... ScepticWombat (talk) 08:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
4. David Gerard (talk) 09:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
5. Will it be livestreamed? Typhoon (talk) 12:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
6. Best idea ever.--JorisEnter (talk) 12:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
7. Indeed. With one non-flush toilet. ħuman 19:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Sigh

1. No really, just "sigh". 142.124.55.236 (talk) 12:10, 28 January 42016 AQD (UTC)
2. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 16:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
3. TroyEntersWithPizzaOnlyToFindRoomOnFire.gif ℕoir LeSable (talk) 16:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

   Some of you think this is funny? I'm weeping. This is just too much. People abused me, involving my family, due to a moderator inviting them here. And you think locking me in a room with more abusers is funny? I've done nothing to deserve this. Sorte has been vicious toward me, as has Castaigne. Anyone with two IQ points knows this sudden uptick in BoNs, who are heading straight for the articles I edit -- and a coop case touching on me -- is not an accident.

   AgingHippie had to page-protect the Chomsky article to keep them out. Is he paranoid as well? Really, this is affecting my mental health. I can't believe the coldness here. Even joking about it. Goddam.

   If I'm banned for a week, I'm canceling my account and leaving. I have done nothing wrong and will not tolerate a record here that I had to be banned. I'm the victim here, and if the mods had seen fit to intervene the many times they were absent, none of these coop cases would have had to exist. I begged them to do something. I didn't bring the coop case precisely becasue of what has happened; now I get more abuse here.

   If a mod had acted, Castiagne wouldn't have been constantly reverting me here, including collapsing my comments, and me not knowing how to revert his collapses without taking whatever comments he'd made. I told him to restore his comments, but to stop collasping my comments. Where was a mod? This is just all just sick victim-blaming. And the result of mods doing next to nothing.---Mona- (talk) 17:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

   Ok, Christ, for the record, my comment was of confusion, and an observation about the current state of the COOP page. I don't find this funny; I don't think I've ever even visited an Israel/Palestine-related article on RW, much less seen what's been going on in the edits/talk pages or heard of harassment towards family members. All I know is that some 12,000 words/70,000 characters worth of new COOP, including multiple votes that people are claiming have already been decided at least in part by users who've either only been created in the recent past or have been practically absent from the Wiki in the past several years, and regarding a topic that had been of issue in previous COOP cases that I had decided not to get involved with, has abruptly popped up seemingly overnight. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Group and/or individual counselling

1. everyone should be made to go to some kind of diversity training to learn basic human empathy and all sing 'coom by ya' around a campfire AMassiveGay (talk) 12:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Putting this behind us

Following discussion & vote on Sorte Slyngel, I've posted some basic guidelines on his user talk page to avoid edit wars over & further conflict with Mona on the understanding that he may be vandal binned or blocked temporarily if he doesn't comply.

I suggest we close & archive the rest of this PDQ. The proposal about sysop-blocking a whole bunch of talk pages has only one vote in favour & no hope in hell of passing. The vote about blocking Mona & Castaigne is an acrimonious time-waster that's just exacerbating tensions. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Seconded. MarmotHead (talk) 18:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Thirded. And let me note that this is pretty much what was agreed upon before the coop case between Sorte and I. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 18:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Fourth. Yes. Please yes.---Mona- (talk) 18:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I vaguely approve, but I do think this does not mean Mona can blithely continue as if nothing happened. This was not a vindication so much as a throwing up of hands in order to wrap up this week's tempest so we can go back to brewing tea. ħuman 19:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Whatever this means: "I do think this does not mean Mona can blithely continue as if nothing happened." I assure you I have not been continuing as if I was not harassed by a banned user (Arisboch) and anotherAvenger, who was perma-binned, so left) and now a third (SorteSlyngel) who has been somewhat reined in. Nor have I exactly been continuing as if the foul cretins at another site (with Arisboch's encouragement) didn't publish my kids' contact info and ask everyone to call their neighbors, and them, and tell them I'm a a "pedo-supporter" and "anti-semite." Trust me, I'm not blithely ignoring any of that. BTW, there's nothing stopping us from insulting non-users here in the coop.---Mona- (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorte's topic ban

I don't quite understand whether any of that means an eternal topic ban. I don't think we should hand down eternal topic bans around here... Pizzameister (talk) 18:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Who is we? & Didn't you get told to leave this page alone? ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

We as in "we the people", i.e. the collective sentencing authority behind this decision. And I would still like to express my opinion that essentially banning one side from editing certain topics for all eternity is not a good idea in my opinion. Of course you can disagree with that, but I did not vote just now and I hope having expressed this opinion is not against any rule. Pizzameister (talk) 18:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

What part of "Stay away from the Coop" is unclear?: "When you come back, please just stay away from the Coop -- for your sake and ours. Your presence there only gets people mad, and mad at you. {{User:FuzzyCatPotato/sig|}}" Pippa (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

(EC) As somebody who wasn't even editing the site when this Coop case started forty-odd hours ago, your opinion & piss-poor understanding of what's been discussed here ain't worth jack shit. This decision doesn't affect you. Be about your business. I won't respond to any more queries or opinions from you about this. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we should have topic bans at all. They always lead to arguments about what's covered and not covered, then revising the scope of the ban to cover something we thought maybe should have been covered initially, and on an on. Unnecessary blathering. If someone's a net positive we keep them, if not, block or throw 'em in the vandal bin. Easy. – Sarah (HH) 18:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

One "side" is abusive and grossly unreasonable, as seen by the community. The other "side" isn't.---Mona- (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Sarah, I kinda agree with that. But in this case the problem user can be counted on to egregiously violate the terms quite promptly and get binned or banned.---Mona- (talk) 18:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Mona, first: sorry for what you've been going through. Second: if we have editors violating basic policies or standards of behavior we should outright ban them. Maybe our standards are too low, maybe they're too high - I support having that discussion. But complicating the system would hurt us in long term IMHO. – Sarah (HH) 19:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

What HH↑ said. Pippa (talk) 19:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that all makes sense. Including having the discussion about the standards.---Mona- (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorte's already announced he will not abide by decision

Weaseloid, as mod, explained the decision to Sorte and the compliance that is required. This is Sorte's answer:

Adhering to RW's guidelines is absolutely commendable and recommendable. But being subjected to what amounts to effectively Mona's censorship is not acceptable and I will not bow to that. This will not be a problem for a while. But when the time is up, I have the right to do what I mentioned above. If not, then RW is useless. If you want to kick me out right away. I did say „Come what may“ in my comment on my last Chomsky-edit. But that was not the full comment. If anyone is interested, it's there to see. In the meanwhile, biding my time. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Before the coop case, he violated mod FCP's instructions not to edit Chomsky, and ran right there, and edited Chomsky, saying: "Come what may." He's already announced he will also not accept the authority of mod Weaseloid, and the community via the coop. This is how unreasonable he is.---Mona- (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Endnote to this recent whatchamacallit

Relevant action has been taken. If Sorte wants to disregard Weaseloid's guidelines they are free to do so and face the consequences. Policy discussions can be had at the bar (or at more relevant talkpages that people will probably not look at). Goodday and goatspeed. No need to reply to this message (which will soon be archived anyway). 142.124.55.236 (talk) 20:05, 28 January 42016 AQD (UTC)

Castaigne2, Kitsulaine

For being a generally irritating and insufferable pair of (sockpuppets?) people.брэндэн (talk) 19:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

+брэндэн

For the same reason. (Also, no doubt a whole list of other people too.) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:04, 13 February 42016 AQD (UTC)

Everyone except me

I can't help but notice that you've all disagreed with me at one point or another. Or if you haven't, I'm going to assume that you will. So you should all be banned because the only important opinion on this site is mine.

This seems to be the standard these days. rpeh •T•C•E• 22:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes

1. I can't believe you'd be so cruel rpeh •T•C•E• 22:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
2. May rpeh's opinion reign supreme. :) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
3. --JorisEnter (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
4. HAIL TO THE KING!!!!!!!!!!!!1111--Kugelschreiber (talk) 22:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
5. Absoutely! --Cosmikdebris (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
6. Yeah, burn this whole world to the ground! CorruptUser (talk) 23:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
7. I can think of worse outcomes than rpeh being the last one left standing. Sooner better than later. SmartFeller (talk) 02:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Goat

• Well I don't know...I mean, I really don't like it when people disagree with me, and I would like to see them all banned even if I have to be banned as well...but at the same time, what if someone disagreed with me and was wrong (obviously), and I had a chance to make them change their view to my view, which is correct (obviously)? If we're all banned, I'll never have a chance to bash my keyboard until everyone agrees with me! But at the same time, what if rpeh disagrees with me, and is therefore 100% wrong? He'll be the only editor around, which will allow him to edit RW until his 100% wrong views are on every page!

I just don't know what to do... Lord Aeonian (talk) 01:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Kugelschreiber

BOW DOWN PEASANTS!!!

Yes

OR ELSE!!!!11--Kugelschreiber (talk) 22:35, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

<insert name here>

What a total fucking butthole. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes

1. Can't deny any of that. rpeh •T•C•E• 23:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
2. Yup, I agree. That person needs to get a real life. CorruptUser (talk) 00:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
3. Can't believe their gall. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 00:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
4. This is a total punk-ass.--Kugelschreiber (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
5. Needs to spend some time outside instead of being glued to a wiki. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 00:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
6. They have a ridiculous PoV. I mean, who would actually believe that nonsense? Must be a troll. Lord Aeonian (talk) 01:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
7. As soon as there is language, generality has entered the scene. ~ Aneris ✻ 01:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
8. No, really. as soon as that asshole arrived, the shit show started. Better place without em, IMHO. SmartFeller (talk) 03:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Ban everyone with an agenda

If you read through the above, you'll quickly be informed that Aneris, Kitsunelanine, Castaigne2, Carpetsmoker, Brendon/брэндэн, myself, and probably some others all have a big bad buddyroid slymepit anti-MLP agenda. All of us, and probably the rest of the site, should be banned or at least vandal binned to prevent our shamelessly biased PoV whitewashing edits from smearing the wiki.

Yes

Agendas everywhere! Down with the agendas! Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Sodomize everyone with a cactus

Yes

1. Tell me I've been bad! Use a prickly pear leaf as a paddle! StickySock (talk) 22:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)