RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive44

Men's Rights EXTREMIST (Resolution: No action)[edit]

So, the general misogony and ludicrous essays were one thing. This little bit about how of course men would rape advocates mythical "rape instinct", that it's the women's fault for not putting out, that women need to not create situations that will get them raped, and yet more rape apologetics. It passes my personal line to tolerate. So, whether troll or serious, I think it's time for him to take an extended vacation. Vote? --Castaigne2 (talk) 05:04, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes[edit]

--Castaigne2 (talk) 05:04, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Typical MRA Red Piller. We really don't need their ilk here. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 05:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Fed up with all the misogynist rants.--JorisEnter (talk) 05:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, he's contributed nothing productive, and just been an obnoxious ass. Enough for a binning or a temporary ban, but not necessarily permanent. CorruptUser (talk) 05:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Boring, unfunny troll. Typhoon (talk) 12:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Over the edge screeds such as this clearly demonstrate his true colors. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 13:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Given his username, there seems little doubt over what his true colours might be. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:28, 13 February 42016 AQD (UTC)
Given that he linked to an Onion article to "make his case," there is considerable doubt. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

[INELIGIBLE] ~~Dullard, adds nothing rational and nothing snarky to the wiki ^{— Unsigned, by: 81.145.153.190 / talk / contribs}~~
Seems like a little vacation would be beneficial to all parties involved. Maybe he will cool down later. Eh. I just want tensions to dissolve. Argh. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 04:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

No[edit]

[INELIGIBLE VOTE] It seems like you're making the usual mistake of confusing subservience with submission. Lots of people (including many women, such as christy0misty) advocate that women be submissive to men, because they believe it will work to the benefit of both by bringing out the best characteristics in both men and women and enhancing the sexual attraction between them. This is a different matter than advocating women be subservient, which would be a misogynistic attitude. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 05:25, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't cry myself to sleep if they are banned but it's nice to have a dissenting voice around. Tielec01 (talk) 06:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I suppose everybody has a right to stupid ideas. Though I understand that he (presumably) could be accused of abusing that right.--Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 07:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Ideological ban is bad. Better to have him here and rebut him and have stronger articles than to construct an echo chamber from the banned bodies of our dissenters. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 15:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Out of interest, how many times would refuting the exact same point he makes would be too many? Should we just start linking him previous rebuttals? Queex _{chthonic murmurings} 19:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
That sounds like a great idea, actually. ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:24, 13 February 42016 AQD (UTC)
Has he actually messed with mainspace content? I'm fine with people banning him a bit on the side when he's being overly misogynistic, but going the road of official coop action when all they've done is edit talk pages seems a bit much. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 18:48, 13 February 42016 AQD (UTC)
брэндэн (talk) 19:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
For all the reasons stated above. rpeh •T•C•E• 19:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
See above--Kugelschreiber (talk) 19:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
For the same reason Fuzzy is against his ban. I would rather us be snarky and dismissive towards him than to outright ban him for his views. Let us not appear to be an ideological wiki who's bubble must be protected at all costs.--Owlman (talk) 19:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Totally, we need a MRA court jester here.--Kugelschreiber (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Actually yes. I think that the MRM is one of the most dangerous movements currently because they bring up compelling, if not convincing, points about gender discrimination. They are truly the perfect hate group because what they preach appears rational at face value since they come off as pro-equality and create an analyse of power, but then turn around and blame feminism for this destruction of 'manhood'. They use men who genuinely want a more equal world and lack certain powers (mostly wealth or being neurotypical) and convince them that actually problems like the male-only draft, male suicide, male homelessness, male mental healthcare, etc can all be rooted in women's desire for power. I think the worst part of that movement is the father's rights movement because of the legitimate push against bias family courts, alimony, certain kinds of child support (where only men pay even if they can't afford it), youth circumcision, and the portrayal of men being creepy pedos around children is combined with the opposition to all forms child support, no fault divorce, abortion, and other forms of reproductive rights. So this user is most likely an antifeminst, but I think that rebuttals to his essays are better than his outright removal.--Owlman (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Re RW's mainpage - We welcome contributors, and encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue. unless this user is actually engaging in vandalism etc then no, he can't be banned as per RW's own welcome status. Ace ⁱ⁹ 20:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
"Constructive dialogue" is the opposite of what's happening. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 20:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
The absence of "Constructive Dialogue" reflects on both sides. rpeh •T•C•E• 22:04, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
It only takes one side to make another not wish to listen. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 23:25, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
No. The wish not to listen is yours and yours alone. rpeh •T•C•E• 00:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Are you saying we need to seriously consider his claims of "rape instinct" and that refusal to do so is not engaging in constructive dialogue? --Castaigne2 (talk) 00:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
No one is obliged to do anything. RW is a wiki based on voluntary participation. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:00, 14 February 42016 AQD (UTC)
That's not an answer to my question. Please refrain from trying to deliberately confuse what I'm asking. --Castaigne2 (talk) 01:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Please refrain from putting words in other people's mouths & then getting outraged when they're thrown back at you. Wëäŝëïöïď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm not putting any words in anyone's mouth. RPEH is stating that Kitsunelaine is refusing to engage in constructive dialogue with our MRA advocate on this subject. He implies that Kitsunelaine should. One only engages in constructive dialogue on a subject when one takes the subject seriously. It's a fair question. I like to know who amongst us takes "rape instinct" seriously. It tells me who to watch for...certain proclivities in the future. --Castaigne2 (talk) 02:56, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Did I say something about a rape instinct? Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 03:03, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Casta, I respect that we're on the same side here, but could you please stop antagonizing people and start trying to get along? There are ways to get your point across without them being blunt trauma inflicted. And the people you're chatting to (Weaseloid and .236) are reasonable enough if you give them a chance. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 03:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
If people are antagonized by blunt honest speech and require silver-tongued lies in order to feel "comfortable", then I would submit that I'm not the problem here. I don't do anything here I don't do in real life. --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:59, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
if you keep going this way, nobody will want to talk to you. There's no point in being right if you're an asshole about it, because nobody will listen. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 21:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps the problem is that Castaigne really thinks "blunt honest speech" and "silver-tongued lies" are the only two options. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

They're not going to listen anyway, so why should I care? I already know what various faction members think. --Castaigne2 (talk) 01:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
That's no reason to make yourself a pariah, dude. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 02:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I was answering whether anyone needs to do anything: The answer is no. As to the second part of your question; well, there can't really be constructive dialogue between two parties if they don't engage each other's arguments sincerely, can there? That being said, of course, not all arguments are worth engaging sincerely. As per my first reply, there's no actual obligation to engage in constructive dialogue all the time. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:37, 14 February 42016 AQD (UTC)
He's all sorts of annoying but, really, even as he wanks off all over RW, he's less important than the car that cuts you off in traffic. Or the piece of toast that burns your tongue. He's just a garden variety asshole. MarmotHead (talk) 01:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
So, we ban people for having the wrong opinions and writing crappy essays? As I recall the LogicMaster777 cases, the real whammies were for attempting to sabotage a fundraiser and similar attempts at systemic mischief, not his kooky ideas and essays or his unwillingness to actually listen to criticism. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:18, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
You can be wrong about in pretty much any degree on any topic on this site ... except anything touching on feminism, of course. He doesn't even have enough edits to be persistently annoying. Have one of the mods tell him to not be a jackass and be done with it. Oh wait, RW can't because mods can't do jack shit, RW can only go in HCM. Carpetsmoker (talk) 03:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

This is probably inevitable. His own defense is not helping. I'm still going to be uncomfortable with running him off because of the content of his ideas. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 05:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Is that a vote or a sigh? FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 17:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Sounds like a not-comfortable-with-either-voting-option abstention to me. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 18:07, 13 February 42016 AQD (UTC)
I dunno. He's about as coherent as LogicMasterWhatever and mostly contained to Essay space and talk pages, and we normally only bother giving someone the elbow when they shit all over main space or mess the bed thoroughly w.r.t. doxxing or whatever. On the other hand, he's an odious tit who just keeps repeating pseudoscience and ignores most of what's said to him, and might attract other cockroaches if given too much free reign. Queex _{chthonic murmurings} 19:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
It's pretty obvious that he's a low tier troll with a gimmick.Keter (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I know nothing of what he has done to mainspace, but the stuff linked to above is repugnant. It is however my understanding that people are not banned for having rancid opinions. ~ Aneris ✻ 00:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Troll. Bongolian (talk) 08:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC) Changing my vote to goat based on the above. I suspect he will return to the coop before long. Bongolian (talk) 08:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Not unlikely, but unless/until his in(s)anity spills over into mainspace, his behaviour becomes outright disruptive or some similar actual transgression, my vote is still a no. ScepticWombat (talk) 22:06, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
He's an idiot from the looks of his "contributions," but could also be a troll for the same reasons. Either way keeping him around, provided he isn't too disruptive and at least tries to debate civilly, would be the best option. That being said I wouldn't mind getting rid of him. Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Closure[edit]

At what time limit (cur 24 hours) or vote limit (cur 17)? FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 04:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

According to the Community Standard, "between seven and fourteen days", but I can't remember the last time we let a Coop vote run that long. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 11:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

At least wait until the weekend is completely over, FFS.--ZooGuard (talk) 13:00, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Again, 48 hours is the traditional standard, FCP. --Castaigne2 (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Only asking b/c vote seems unlikely to get 2/3 majority needed or even 1/2 majority, and is shitfest. Sorry for ruffling your temporal feathers <-< Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk)

Resolution: No action[edit]

47.5 hours have passed, 63% of votes oppose action, and this is a shitfest. Good god. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 04:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Carpetsmoker vs. Kitsunelaine: Teh Epic Battle[edit]

Two Steps from Hell blasts in the background Who will reign forever in glorious victory? Who will die alone in pitiable defeat? Find out here! (Had to, it was really off topic)

This entire thing is a clusterfuck initiated by a few editors who do almost no real mainspace edits (we all know who) and primarily complain about other people they don't like for whatever reason on talkpages. Aneris' posts are tl;dr for me, and truth be told I never read a single one in full. I just ignore it. So can you. Unlike some people he doesn't hurl vile personal insults nor seeks to chase people off a site. Some of the stuff you link to doesn't even make sense, like this where he simply calls you out on account of being stuck in an echochamber. Carpetsmoker (talk) 03:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Cram it with the passive agressive bullshit. If you want to fight me, fucking front up. This shit is the reason why I said it to you straight on my talk page. It's not my fault you ran away to cry with your reddit friends like a total chickenshit. I didn't "Drive you off". You ran away, because nobody was buying your bullshit excuses. And if you're gonna come back here just to start shit and not follow through, stay gone. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 03:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Ah yes, all you can do is respond with your persecution complex and personal insults when I call you out on your bullshit. You have 163 mainspace edits since oktober that are not reverts. That's very little; many of them are minor, and you only contributed a few actual paragraphs of text. Where you somehow get the sheer arrogance in telling other people what to do or how to behave on a collaborative site you don't actually contribute to I will never know (this actually started with the first edits, so it's hardly a new thing). Carpetsmoker (talk) 03:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
It's not a fucking persecution complex when you're outright accusing me of trying to chase you off the site. Carpetsmoker: If I wanted that, I would have fucking cooped you. You ran. Not my fault. I tried to level with you and all you did was deflect and scream at me. I continued to try and level my concerns with you but you never actually addressed them with any substance whatsoever. And when you saw that I was immune to your attempts at deflection, you ran to the stalkers that harass members of this site for comfort. You made your bed. Lie in it. If you're just going to stand there and pussyfoot around the issue at hand, please stop wasting everyone's time. I'm not in the business of picking fights, I'm in the business of resolving them. That's the difference between you and me. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 03:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Tell me, on a scale of 1 to 10, just how stupid do you think I am? Do you somehow think that I do not remember what happened and what you did?

Because earlier you stated that the only reason you didn't coop me is because "it would put myself and others at risk" (lol) and "Thankfully, his LANCB'ing has resulted in no need for me to write up a coop case, which I would have prepared otherwise" and "I really do hope you get banned" Oops! That's not what you said just now.

As for "levelling with me", you started by calling me an "insufferable moron" and hurled all sorts of insults. Putting yourself here as some sort of paragon of reason who patiently tried to "level with me" is another lie.

In fact, from almost your first edits you have been on something of a crusade against me. You magically appeared defending Ryulong, who was in the process of being a complete asshole like usual. Who exactly is harassing who, we must wonder. Of course, this has always been my fault for being a terrible person, buy hey, at least I actually wrote stuff here. I did a lot of boring cleanup stuff to, like trying to fix the copyright clusterfuck (which lost steam after Ryulong decided to be a complete jackass over it; which was of course again my problem for not seeing the brilliance of his non-arguments). I wrote a few bots. What did you do? 100 typo corrections and 6 paragraphs of text. Well, whoopiedoo. Your entire raison d'être here seems to be to complain, arrogantly assert "how things should be", and chase people off. That you also did some edits seems entirely coincidental. Carpetsmoker (talk) 04:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
addendum (since someone forever keep editing their posts): "in the business of resolving them" is laughable. You picked the fight by stating that "It'll be you who'll be on the chopping block next" after I just made a reply to something completely unrelated (I actually forgot what it was). It was me who resolved the fight by concluding that defending myself from vile and hateful people was a waste of my time. It's also you who are picking the fight here. I merely stated my take on the coop case. Take it or leave it. You decide to reply with lies as any vague negative comment in your general direction must obviously be responded to with personal attacks. Carpetsmoker (talk) 04:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Bullshit. You picked that fight when you passive aggressively tried to get a rise out of me. You'd been doing it all the time. I was warning you that if you continued, I would coop you. Stop it with this disingenuous nonsense. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 04:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

HuskyHarlot[edit]

I don't think I have to do much except link to this and this user's history here in order to make a case against them. They're a disruptive troll who admit they're only here to wage some imaginary war against other users of this site, and their history is very telling. Ordinarily I would propose a vandal bin, but since this user has stated their motivations outright, I feel like that sort of intent is more than worthy of a ban. I tried engaging with this user constructively, and this is what I got. There's no sense keeping them around when they're this overt about their intentions here. They're only here to spew vitriol ((see: SO many things in their contribs)) and to try and stir the pot and cause more drama, as it were. We don't need that here.

Yes[edit]

- Kitsunelaine ^{「SJW Illuminati shill.」} 06:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

No[edit]

Which of these requirements for a block has the offender committed?

Doxing: Adding personal information about others into a page. This also includes soliciting for such information off of RationalWiki.
Legal threats: Raising legal threats against RationalWiki, the RationalMedia Foundation, or any RationalWiki editors. If you have a concern with some content about you, argue why it should be changed. Going around slapping people with lawsuit threats is not conducive to constructive debate.
Harassment: Adding purely offensive material, solely for the purpose of causing emotional harm, into a page.
Spam: Adding advertising, especially media of or links to illegal or obscene items, into a page. Or, adding huge chunks of text to a page. Or, adding something to many pages. Tielec01 (talk) 06:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Harassment. They literally said they're here to wage a war against other users on talk pages. They're a gamergate troll who came here to harass Ryulong primarily, then me when he was gone. And you can find many different things in their user contributions to verify the sorts of things they post. - Kitsunelaine ^{「SJW Illuminati shill.」} 06:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Disagreement is not harassment. Tielec01 (talk) 06:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

How the hell can you say "I'm here to wage an ideological war against you, we outnumber you" is a simple disagreement? If you'd like, I can go through and list all the bullshit they've said and done, but it honestly seems like more effort than they deserve at this point. - Kitsunelaine ^{「SJW Illuminati shill.」} 06:25, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh goodness I wasn't even notified. Quite underhanded! You're all welcome to bore yourselves (or maybe not!) with that particular thread. I took the Saloon bar as well - as saloon bar. If I've I've gunked up actual project pages with unproductive blather Kitsun should provide those links, and I'll apologize and take my punishment. This is (in my humble opinion) an overly-emotional reaction and a waste of community time. – Sarah (HH) 06:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Kitsun, a question: including this one how many coop cases have you started since registering? – Sarah (HH) 06:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

You need to learn what "passive aggressive" means. Hint: it is *not* the same as criticism or disagreeing. Carpetsmoker (talk) 04:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

On your "It would have put myself and others at risk": A) That's disingenuous as shit to bring up because the incident we're talking about at that time was around the height where people were fucking trying to doxx me. More drama means more ammo means more risk means more, y'know, doxxing. They were also targeting anyone who was talking with me on twitter at the time, which forced me to make my account private. I'm talking about later. And you know that. The "Driving you off of the site" complaint is purley from the talk page shitfest, which was me trying to level with you. And yes, if I wanted you gone, at that point, I would have fucking cooped you. More to the point, I was increasingly frustrated with your passive aggression, your attempts to ignite some kind of flame war with me whenever you got the chance. I had been focusing on AVOIDING you because I really didn't like or trust you, and I was sick and fucking tired of you poking sleeping drama, and wanted it over and done with. Forgive me if my tongue got away from me, but you were, quite literally, trying to get just that kind of rise from me, because I had the gall to treat sensitive issues the way they needed to be treated in an incredibly fucking sensitive time. In that sense, it is rather ironic that you accuse me of trying to chase you off, when it appeared to quite literally be the other way around, and I was tired of it.

It is laughable that you insist I wasn't in any immediate danger by contributing to this wiki, because you yourself openly contributed to a thread in which was dedicated to the doxxing and harassment of Ryulong, and at the time in question (not when you were posting there, if you're keeping track), had turned it's attention to focus on me, because you'd done their job and driven him from the site. And before you give me that "I left because I don't like doxxing!" shit, the thread literally has Ryulong's fucking IRL name in it's god damn title and you didn't care. You looked at it and said "These seem like great people, I should mingle and try to get along with them!" I guess doxxing is okay if it's happening to Ryulong, eh? - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 04:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
How the doxing actually relates to anything being discussed, I have no idea, as my statement wasn't about you somehow being endangered, but about you lying about not wanting to chase me off the site; you replied "if I wanted to do that, I would have cooped you". Well, you would have, if I haven't left. You said so yourself on multiple occasions. Simply put, you lied. Again. (As a sidenote, how exactly would a coop case have furthered that goal? Do you need to state your address details? Send a copy of your passport? Can it be obtained by a freedom of information act? As for me "knowing that". No. I am not somehow obsessed with you that I know all of these vitally important details about you. The world does not revolve about your alleged "harassment").

Your "danger card" is bunk; it is a transparent and pathetic attempt to play the poor victim and twist the discussion into something it's not even about. Claims of me trying to do anything more than defend RW on teh interwebz are also bunk. As for Ryulong's real name, you see it in three places on the first Google page. Is this a "dox"? How am I supposed to know? The buddyroid has long been out of the bag, so to speak (of course, saying this is also "doxing", judging by your recent removal of edits), and your conclusions about "me not caring" are made in your own echo chamber (conveniently forgetting that I spent quite a bit of time in tracking down all potential Conservapedia doxes, for example. You know, actually sort of work on this site). But hey, lets level the playing field:

Martin Tournoij

Van Renesseweg 14

5645 JR, Eindhoven (The Netherlands)

(+031) 6 4790 2405

this is me, as is this. Here is my living room (well, part of it anyway). here it is on a map (if you use streetview it's the top-right one−it's from before I actually lived there btw).

So, now I am "doxed". It was all public anyway for anyone who cared to search (whois anyone), but for some strange and inexplicable reason I have never been a target for such searches. I wonder why. Oh wait, I think maybe it's not being a lying asshole who stirs up shit every chance he gets, but merely being someone who wants to constructively contribute to the internet.

Oh, and "you'd done their job and driven him [Ryulong] from the site" is funny, because I'm pretty sure most Kiwis regret Ryulong's departure, as he was a consistent and high-level (or low-level, depending on your take) source of ridiculous drama. Carpetsmoker (talk) 04:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
So your argument is "You aren't in any danger, doxxing is harmless, and if you get harassed through doxxing you deserve it because you're a lying asshole who stirs shit up every chance she gets"? Ho---leee---crap. And you're trying to imply I'm chickenshit for not having all my private information online by posting yours here. Holy fucking shit. Have you gone off of the deep end? - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 05:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
No, my argument is that it was ridiculous and lame for brining up doxing and playing the victim, as the discussion wasn't even touching on it. The world does not revolve about your alleged harassment. It was about you being a non-contributing person who only arrogantly complains about others in a vile and hateful manner, and somehow has the guts to arrogantly assert how this site "should be". Carpetsmoker (talk) 05:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
"Alleged harassment" oh gods are you saying doxxing isn't a form of harassment now or are you seriously insisting these people weren't trying to doxx me? also let me say something regarding your earlier post: google doesn't always remove doxx, and the fact that it's on google does not make it fucking okay. Christ on a pogostick. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 05:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Why are we still talking about doxing? Why aren't we talking about you repeatedly lying? Why aren't we talking about that you make almost no meaningful contributions and seemingly only want to squash any dissent on a very narrow range of topics? This discussion isn't about doxing. Your attempts to play victim to win internet discussions may work for some, but not with me. Carpetsmoker (talk) 05:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Because you said some incredibly reprehensible things that nobody can really justify? And they're incredibly indicative of the kind of shit that makes me have a problem with you in the first place? And you're still insisting me saying people were trying to doxx me is false. And that I'm just doing this to gain VictimBux instead of trying to tackle YOUR issues with me by explaining what actually happened. Which is incredibly fucking offensive. HEAVEN FORBID I actually address you bitching about me talking with the mods behind your back and give the reasons why it wasn't out in the open.- Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 05:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
This discussion isn't about me. You made it that in a lame tu queue attempt as you're seemingly unable to not reply and not' hurl insults. I never insisted that the doxing or harassment claims are false. I said "alleged". Not the same as saying it didn't happen. Do you score point for lying and twisting people's words? Or is it that you don't own a dictionary? As you seem to be having problems with the definition of more words. Carpetsmoker (talk) 05:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh, so "This entire thing is a clusterfuck initiated by a few editors who do almost no real mainspace edits (we all know who) and primarily complain about other people they don't like for whatever reason on talkpages. Aneris' posts are tl;dr for me, and truth be told I never read a single one in full. I just ignore it. So can you. Unlike some people he doesn't hurl vile personal insults nor seeks to chase people off a site" wasn't you totally trying to make it about me. Nope. It's also not like you can't, y'know, go ahead and verify this shit because it happened in the thread you yourself participated in, and we've already established you have almost no problem with doxx and see it as a sort of "fair game". Stop being such a disingenuous brat. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 06:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
You started this coop case, I explained why I voted "no", and briefly explain the coop case's motivations. You went ahead and made it about me and started to whine about me and doxing and whatnot. You could have actually refuted anything being said. Instead you made yourself rather ridiculous (as absolutely no one had expected!) Carpetsmoker (talk) 06:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
You came back to start shit. The entire intent of your post here was to start shit. I addressed the shit you started, because I get the sense you don't really care about Aneris. You wanted to make it about me. That is painfully obvious. What's remarkable is that you seem to be in denial about it. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 06:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey guys, I hate to break this up, but this is supposed to be about Aneris. If I wanted to read things like "And that I'm just doing this to gain VictimBux instead of trying to tackle YOUR issues with me by explaining what actually happened. Which is incredibly fucking offensive. HEAVEN FORBID I actually address you bitching about me" I would send a text to my gf :) Lord Aeonian (talk) 05:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I'm not the problem here. Carpetsmoker doesn't want to leave well enough alone, and has gone out of his way to personally attack me, many times. If I could magically stop Carpetsmoker from stirring up shit, I would gladly do so. But unfortunately, if this were brought to an artificial end, he will keep jabbing. I do not want to browse this site with that much tension waiting to explode, especially given the fucking horrific stuff Carpetsmoker has just said. It would be bad for everyone. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 05:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm not picking a side. I quoted you because it was the last post, I didn't mean to imply I was supporting Carpetsmoker. All I'm saying is that this really isn't the right place. Please don't hurt me :) Lord Aeonian (talk) 05:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Naaah, you're cool. We may disagree on some things, but I can tell you're not actually in it to pick sides or attack people. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 07:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

"gone out of his way to personally attack me, many times" -> LOL. Alternate universe time! You're a terrible liar. No really, it is. You take any form of criticism and disagreement as a form of personal attack, and respond with a level of vile hatred I've not often encountered. Simply put, that people like you are tolerated here−and let there be no mistake, most people here tolerate you as they would tolerate a borderline troll−has little to do with you and me, and everything about some misguided memes in RationalWiki's culture. Carpetsmoker (talk) 05:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
You came back solely to start shit, and it's all on this page for everyone to see, so it's laughable you argue you're doing anything different. And everything you say about how I handle criticism and disagreement is patently false. It's just you. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 06:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
You came here solely to start shit in the first place. Literally, on the first day on the wiki you took the piss on me for not taking your buddyroid's bullshit. And if it's me who's always at fault and a terrible person, then why is it just you and a few other people well known for their high level of reasonability and nuanced judgement of others that have a problem with me? The only difference between me and most here is that I don't take your bullshit, your buddyroid's bullshit, or David's "literally went to recruit doxers" Gerard's bullshit, while the rest just sighs and lets the toxic elements in this community (that's you) fester or just quietly leave. Carpetsmoker (talk) 06:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
You overreacted to someone making a clear joke. That's not my fault. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 06:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Ah yes, and what do grown-ups do when they see a joke isn't funny? Drive it through again and again and again? and bring in buddyroids to help defend them? Or stop, say sorry, and ask "how can we make this page better?" No, of course not. When someone doesn't bow down and sucks Ryulong's dick it's always the *other* person's fault. Well, I'm not the one banned of any wiki I get on to. You remind me of my brother; we had the same school, same teachers, I never got into trouble, and he was always in trouble. But it was always *other* people's fault. Well, he grew up and became an adult. A step not all of us have taken. Carpetsmoker (talk) 06:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh, so now the joke's "not funny" as opposed to you just failing to get it and thinking he was legitimately outraged. "Jesus, calm down! STOP BEING SO CHILDISH OVER MY EDITS GOD, I will not accept being shouted at" is a sign of you getting a joke. Got it. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 06:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, what's a "buddyroid?" I'm...just asking questions :) :) :) Lord Aeonian (talk) 06:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

A favoured line of Ryulong's harassers, relating to Go-Busters, a Sentai show, and it's over a translation dispute with a pretty clear outcome. A group rallied around it and tried desperately to troll him with it on Wikipedia and other sites. It's baseline pettiness, nothing more. Basically, it's a Japanese translation thing that enough children disagreed on that they harassed him endlessly over. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 06:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah ok. I'm learning a lot about this very vibrant community today :) Lord Aeonian (talk) 06:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Sentai is great, but I prefer Kamen Rider myself. :) - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 06:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Lol, no. Ryulong has been insisting on a stupid mistranslation of some cartoon show for many years (who *insists* that is should "buddyloid", and you know how Ryulong is: he cannot accept any change to *HIS* pages, no matter *HOW* small). Everyone who disagrees or makes fun of him over that is a "harasser". This is the same Ryulong who was shooed off the Japanese Wikipedia for being absolutely terrible at Japanese btw. heh. It's pretty damn funny if you ask me. This is why I say "alleged harassment" btw. Carpetsmoker (talk) 06:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, so, targeted mockery and repeated instances of trying to disingenuously overwrite things he works on in order to get a rise is not harassment. Got it. Also holy christ, you're really obsessed with the guy. He's a friend and even I don't go digging through his internet history to be ready when people like you distort the truth. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 06:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

It's a buddy and it's an android so: buddy-roid. But because the Japanese don't differentiate between r and L the official source says "buddyloid" so Ryulong must have it that way, even though the rest of the english-speaking world disagrees. My favorite Ryulong mistranslation is the gold-colored Kamen Rider. He insists this gold-colored character's name is not Gold Drive but Gord Drive, with an R! Gourd drive lol. – Sarah (HH) 07:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Buddyroid/loid sounds kinda cute. Like a good name for a kitten or something :) Lord Aeonian (talk) 07:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

What I find funny is that people are anal towards Ryulong for arguing the canonicity of official sources, as opposed to Toei for getting it wrong. So long as there's someone to hate, I guess. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 07:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, actually, I don't "know how Ryulong is." Everything I know about this wonderful Ryulong is from this page :) Lord Aeonian (talk) 06:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Friendly advice: Don't ask Carpetsmoker. :'D - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 06:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Ryulong is a toxic individual, compulsive liar and petty totalitarian. He got permbanned from Wikipedia, which goes to show how much of a toxic influence he is. I wouldn't trust anything he or his friends support. брэндэн (talk) 07:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

People who are permabanned are unable to appeal. Ryulong can appeal. Though he hasn't yet. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 07:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Aneris (Resolution: No action)[edit]

Aneris Has been a low effort troll on this site for a very long period of time. He's abrasive, he doesn't talk with others so much as accuse them of being shills and "trying to protect the narrative" and lambast the site's ""SJW""'s, but I know we don't ban for that. More recently, he's been targeting an article on Slymepit, to find his attempts at whitewashing and justification of Slympitter's hatred of it's targets constantly reverted. I do not propose a ban, though I would not be upset if he were; no, this is more reason for a vandal binning, and given his history of being the opposite of constructive in discussions, to the point where everyone practically ignores him now, I feel this is more than justified.

Additional Material[edit]

Okay, so it seems some people aren't quite convinced, due to lack of experience dealing with the user in question or simple ignorance, so I've decided to compile a few examples of his attitudes and behavior to help make the case. Before I was relying on the fact that I felt this user had been a known entity among this site's users, but I fear it’s not quite strong enough.

First exhibit, this exchange via block talking, where he accuses me of vandal editing because I reverted his additions to the Slymepit article. This is read from bottom to top. [1]

An example of him trying to disingenuously edit another mainspace article. [2]

An example of his attitudes towards an editor here, on the aforementioned Slympit article. [3]

An example of how he reacts to people disagreeing with him. [4], swiftly reverted

You don’t have to scroll down much to find him edit warring again while throwing more adhoms [5]

Him ranting about “social justice warrior ideologues”, calling people “comically incompetent”. [6] His reactions to people disagreeing with him. [7] Really, the whole first archive of that page is a massive display of the problem at hand. There’s a couple instances of me losing my cool in there, for sure, but that’s why I try to stay out of these things nowadays (And I’ve been mostly successful.)

His reaction to me telling an aggressive troll off; [8]

Him claiming persecution. [9]

This entire shitfest. No matter what your thoughts on Ryulong, all this shit? This entire section? Is fucking terrible, and another prime example of the issues with this user. [10]

I could probably find more, but this is already too much effort for this guy.

Also google "Ryulong" Kistuelaine's friend and the context of these earlier days. I'm sure everyone has fond memories! ~ Aneris ✻ 01:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes[edit]

- Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 21:40, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
The thread got overrun with petty infighting and displays of the very behavior I'm talking about here. In light of this, I would urge everyone to seriously consider the drain this user will have on the wiki if he remains unchecked. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 07:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
tbh, I wouldnt even mind if his opponents left. They're the ones that seem to be pushing the agenda the hardest, and using the coop to remove wrongthinkers. брэндэн (talk) 07:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Clarify: by his opponents, I meant opponents of Aneris. брэндэн (talk) 07:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Subtle. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 07:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Let the purges begin, comrade! Keter (talk) 21:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Keter, you damn tankie.--Owlman (talk) 23:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Is that dissent I see? SIBERA WITH YOU!Keter (talk) 11:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Siberia?! Siberia is too good for him! On to the firing squad with the enemy of the people!!--Kugelschreiber (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I personally see no reason to mollycoddle conspiracy theorists who are here solely for their crank agenda. YMMV. --Castaigne2 (talk) 01:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

No[edit]

He would say you do the same, removing his sourced edits. Is ideology-based, not vandalism-based. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 22:40, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
I would argue that trying to whitewash the contents of a page and include language that justifies a group of people targeting other people would constitute vandalism. Also of note, that this is the first time I've personally reverted his edits on that page, to my recollection. It is not simply a question of me verses him, I am just the one who went ahead and made the case against him because I'm tired of watching his pointless feuds with others, where he is usually always the aggressor. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 23:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
"whitewash the contents of a page and include language that justifies a group of people targeting other people" see that sentence explains the problem perfectly. Should RW remove all content that snarkily points out problems in conservative or religious viewpoints? No? Why not, isn't that providing justification for a group of people to target another group of people? It seems like this argument boils down to "he disagrees with me." Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

You mean crank-and-conspiracy-theory based. Fixed that for you. --Castaigne2 (talk) 02:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
A minor edit war doesn't justify vandal binning one of the participants at the request of the other. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 22:42, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Contradicting or edit-warring with Kitsunelaine ain't no binnable offense.--Kugelschreiber (talk) 22:47, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Except it's not just with me, I simply stopped his latest attempt. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 23:19, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
I didn't use the qualifier "just" :3 </smartass_mode>.--Kugelschreiber (talk) 23:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
My point still stands, regardless. It is not simply a feud with me, but something born of how he's treated many editors in the past. It's the straw that broke the camel's back. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 23:25, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
What about a user like Castaigne2, who takes quite an aggressive stance? Should he banned as well? Aneris seems to clash with many editors because he has a minority viewpoint, not because he wants to do nothing else. And from what I've seen, he always explains his positions in detail. Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
He does need to be told off, but he isn't quite on the same level yet. And it hasn't been as long standing of a problem. If you want me to dig up a more compelling case, I can, but I sort of relied on the experience of others having dealt with him when I brought this up precisely because of how long standing this issue has been. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 00:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, please, coop me. I dare you. I relish a good fight when it's offered. --Castaigne2 (talk) 02:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Remember the Kronstadt!--Owlman (talk) 23:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
This ban seems very ideological. As long as engages in civil debate and not mindless vandalism, why ban him? There is a much better case against the Men's Rights EXTREMIST idiot, but even then I would say no as long as he participates civilly. Edit warring with legitimate arguments on both sides is never a justification for a ban. Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't call how he reacts to people who disagree with him "Civil". And I never asked for a ban, just a vandal bin, so we didn't have to put up with it as much-- big difference. He treats me in particular with unprompted hostility, and I've noticed he treats Queex with the same caliber of vitriol. I can't remember anyone else on the top of my head, but there has definitely been a long standing history of him constantly relying on ad-hom towards those who disagree with him. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 00:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Well first of all let me say that I am new here, and you/Queex/etc. doubtlessly have a better view of him than I do. I don't think his contributions (outside of editing warring) are low quality or counter-missional enough to warrant a vandal bin. Also, regarding vitroil, look at Castaigne2's attitude in this discussion. Looking through Aneris' contrib history, I don't see anything like that - but I don't think Castaigne2 should be banned just for disagreeing with me in an unsavory way, because he did bring up actual points amidst the other stuff. As I said, you've been here longer than I, but I just don't see a reason to vandal bin Aneris based on the reasons you've given. Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
It's just the straw that broke the camel's back, as I explained previously. It's more a pile of continued aggression than any single incident. I'm digging up some examples, but it may take a while and I may get sidetracked. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 00:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
It's nonsense. It's only recently that I persistently re-revert when the vandals undid additions (sourced!) from me. They hate that, and previously also harassed me with sock accounts and similar shenanigans. They now again pull the intimidation routine, as they always do, because they want to silence and make an example to others. This gang scared many people away already. While I have now produced a lot on talk pages, I took on diverse topics, from Discordianism to FGM, added to Kissinger, Chomsky, also had big articles in the works. Check out Typhoon and such people, they only whitewash Saints of Social Justice or turn pages of perceived enemies into hit-and-smear pieces. They are the real one-trick ponies. ~ Aneris ✻ 01:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
As much as you rail on about conspiracies and cabals, it's honestly not my fault you're kind of an asshole, man. It should speak VOLUMES that literally nobody else is taking up your case. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 01:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
That's pretty much the case for almost everyone who doesn't toe a certain party line. People are harassed by you, and back then by Ryulong. You create drama around people and is seen by other users, who don't like this. They begin to associate this drama with certain users. You take turns, but your target is always in the centre. If Aeonian and others are in for a funky ride, google "Ryulong", Kitsunelaine friend of the early days when I arrived here. Or ask some other people here, if they have fond memories. :D ~ Aneris ✻ 01:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Are you serious man? Your whole argument here is "NO, YOU", yet you provide no examples, and you tell people to google the name of a user who has been a big target of a massive hate group that has doxxed him and harassed him and generally tried to ruin his life and drive him off of the internet for like, two years. Your agenda is showing. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 01:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
"Hate group"? Now that a conspiracy theory. Yes, he had run-ins with Gamergate, too, but one doesn't even need to enter his username into Google (who uses the same user name on multiple websites, anyway?!), a look at his behavior on this web site is enough.--Kugelschreiber (talk) 01:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
No it isn't. Gamergate has been and still is targeting him. This is no small thing, and it has influenced many things revolving around his behavioral issues, a lot of which stemmed from constant bad faith trolls joining both this site and other wikis, and people like Aneris. And this seems like a huge attempt at a deflection on the part of Aneris, railing further on a user who has already been cooped, which goes to show he really doesn't have a leg to stand on in defending himself. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 01:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Funny how that works. Didn't you dig up the old situation for this coop-case? Didn't you and Ryulong follow me around and harass me because you thought back then I was into GamerGate (I'm not, and am still not). You used this to poison the well and rile me up with this, which alas also pissed off other users then (admittedly, that worked for a while). ~ Aneris ✻ 01:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Fucking really? You think I'm the one harassing you? Gimme a break, man. You and I have barely interacted in months, because I don't make a point of interacting with people like you, because I don't think it's worth my time. I made this case because your recent efforts have made it not worth everyone else's time, either. Let's also make a point to note that you are almost always the aggressor. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 01:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
We all see how you “don't make a point of interacting with people like [me]”, by going to articles you know nary a thing about and opening a pointless coopcase. Very convincing. I guess people like you who spammed onto my talk pages where also examples of how you not interact with me. In reality, I typically accepted your friends' reverts and undo damages and hence you had no reason to annoy me and other people. It has evidently nothing to do with your famed ability to avoid “people like me”. Again, your “aggressor” neither agrees with the inherent nature of making a coopcase against me, nor does it agree with how things generally panned out so far, I'm afraid. ~ Aneris ✻ 02:03, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
On the contrary, I know enough to recognize the bullshit. And no matter how much you accuse them of being my "friends'", there is, in fact, no shadowy cabal out to get you. Moreover, I did add the qualifier "in months", and you have said nothing to prove otherwise. There was a time where I did interact you. But I can recognize a lost cause when I see one-- that time is not now. And reverting disingenuous bullshit from mainspace articles hardly counts as "interacting with". It's doing my job as a decent editor at this site. So long as your bullshit is contained to talk pages, I avoid you like the plague. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 02:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Please stop Kitsunelaine. Tielec01 (talk) 05:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I would suggest a cooling-off period for both parties, either mutually agreed upon or enforced if necessary. Bongolian (talk) 03:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Ideological. This user hasn't done a whole lot wrong, and it'll need to take a lot more to warrant significant action. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 04:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't agree with Aneris' opinions, but the reasons presented for vandal binning him so far seem rather flimsy, especially given that other editors have taken to simply ignoring his various "opinionspace" stuff and his mainspace actions haven't reached a scale or character that amounts to coopable disruption. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
This entire thing is a clusterfuck initiated by a few editors who do almost no real mainspace edits (we all know who) and primarily complain about other people they don't like for whatever reason on talkpages. Aneris' posts are tl;dr for me, and truth be told I never read a single one in full. I just ignore it. So can you. Unlike some people he doesn't hurl vile personal insults nor seeks to chase people off a site. Some of the stuff you link to doesn't even make sense, like this where he simply calls you out on account of being stuck in an echochamber. Carpetsmoker (talk) 06:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I edited this post to remove passive aggressive nonsense. Please use the designed section for Teh Epic Battles. Thanks :) Lord Aeonian (talk) 06:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Please don't. It's an accurate description of what's going on here. Does RW really need people who do almost no mainspace edits cooping people? Because I don't think so. In some open source communities there's a saying: "write patches or shut up". This also applies to wikis IMHO. It's not my fault that someone has a complete inability to respond to any form of criticism in a manner that even vaguely resembles sanity. Carpetsmoker (talk) 07:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I understand your position - I really do, I was thinking the exact same thing during the recent edit wars over at regressive left, all I'm trying to say is that this isn't the place. This is for voting and discussing the specific issue at hand. It isn't fair to Aneris or anyone else to bring this up here, which I why I moved the whole thing to a separate section. Lord Aeonian (talk) 07:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Moving the section was okay. Just not removing or editing my comment initial IMHO. It's not overly offensive or anything (especially not in light of the events last month), and didn't really expect a reply. I just came here to copy some of my stuff and figured I might as well see what's going on in RecentChanges. heh. After Kitsunelaine replied it seemed like fun. Carpetsmoker (talk) 07:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

It sounds like you want to discuss a policy change. This is not the place for a policy change. :) - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 07:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Why are we even listening to the petty grievances of someone getting their circlejerk broken up?брэндэн (talk) 07:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
No.--Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 07:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
This is just an attempt at an ideological purge. Good to see that the majority here are refusing to go along with it. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 08:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I'd even agree that we ought to adopt a more skeptical stance towards some of the forms of prevalent nonsense that Aneris is against. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 13:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
No. I don't see anything worthy of that yet. Ayzmo ^Cheers 19:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

If he starts edit warring again[edit]

I wouldn't advocate being tolerant of whitewashing in mainspace just because "it's ideological", but I don't think there's an urgent need for Aneris to be binned unless he starts edit warring again. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
A decent enough compromise, if it comes to that. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 01:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
If "he" starts edit warring? You did edit war, too. BOTH of you did. Don't try to deny it.--Kugelschreiber (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Duh...? But binning/blocking for a set period of time is kind of standard practice, no? At least for more useless/counter productive and repeated forms of edit warring. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Is he actually being disruptive? Otherwise, my opinion is tilting towards a no. Especially given the "everyone practically ignores him now" bit. ScepticWombat (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
He tries his hardest to be, and those without experience dealing with him might fall for it. The vandal bin is good for everyone. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 22:00, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
How exactly is he being disruptive? Having crappy opinions isn't disruptive in and of itself. Examples would be something like obsessive and counterproductive edit warring, wiki-lawyering, harassment of other editors, or similar actions that may constitute actual harm to the wiki, its contents, or the (collective of) editors. ScepticWombat (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
"Excessive and counterproductive edit warring" seems like a reasonable description of the Slymepit page right now.--JorisEnter (talk) 22:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Plus the way he reacts to people disagreeing with him and those who have routinely disagreed with him might constitute some level of harassment of editors. His company is not a boon to this site, but as I've said, it's not worthy of a banning (yet). Merely a vandal bin, so we don't have to put up with it as much. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 23:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Here's my (Aneris) take:
- My edits were fully sourced and it's the first time I made substantive changes to this article. It's interesting to see that they can add whatever they want, anytime, revert for months, practically “own” articles, but when their BS is replaced with sourced material, it is considered vandalism. Look at the logs. For good measure, also look here. If the big red minus doesn't clue you in, I don't know what would. In reality, they just don't like some direction, because reality seldom glues well with their deluded views. Most people give in, and that's what they expect. If you don't, they make a big fuss about it (hence were are here now).
- Here you have an older case already, where they removed that PZ Myers blackballed Abbie Smith. Wait, who's the misogynist here, and who doesn't want uppity women who disagree? This statement, even though important, is declared as "removing irrelevant bitching about PZ". Again, reality disagrees. Did he just lied to you with this log line? This was a quote by PZ Myers HIMSELF about the blackballing of the Slymepit founder, Abbie Smith. How his his direct quote from him "irrelevant bitching"? Did PZ Myers bitch about himself? Ah, but PZ Myers is always good for a quote when it helps their case, isn't he? Again, they don't like how the facts turn out. They removed even half-sentences and relentlessly reverted when it provided a little context, because that would change the impression ever so slightly. We are talking about completely uncontroversial things like that PZ Myers community is called Horde (1)(2), which everyone knows is true. That was removed, too. Instead they add completely fabricated gender warrior bollocks, because they actually have no clue about this situation but want to transpose their GamerGate-manosphere-genderwarrior-(whatever) rubbish into this situation.
- It may also be helpful for context to consider that I left the article alone for the longest time, but only began editing it more when they added nonsense while also adding my name into it. Mods had to remove and revert that a few times, too. I hope that puts things into perspective. (•̀ᴗ•́) ~ Aneris ✻ 00:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps you could, I dunno, take it up on the article's talk page then instead of edit warring, throwing around ad-homs, screaming persecution and accusing others of being the vandals? - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 01:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
You know, I am familiar with these tactics, but maybe others aren't. You made this coop-case. You made accusations, I defended myself. This is the nature of this situation. No matter how much you would like to redefine it. I provided the evidence for my take, and your attempts to establish what's called the “hegemony of interpretation” won't change any of that. Try your abuser tactics on someone else. Btw, as you show yourself above, I very often discussed things. I actually did this most of the time. Almost too much. Even this caused harassment from your team. I only learned that nobody cares, since you and your gang assert “ownership” over articles. ~ Aneris ✻ 01:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
No matter how many times you accuse me of harassment and abuse, that doesn't make it true, Aneris. Attacking others isn't the same as defending yourself. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 01:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Let me sum up. Virtually every edit, no matter how sourced was always reverted by your gang. They also destroyed articles and removed like a third of all sources. I pretty much always accepted that, since your gang is persistent. In particular your friend Ryulong is internet famous in that department, wasn't he? (just google Ryulong, everyone). There is usually no point in enganging in this. It's also unimportant in which direction it goes. When they want something in, they put it in. And revert every changes. If they don't want something in, they also revert. It doesn't matter. Only the Grand Narrative is important. Collaborative editing? Forget about that. Constructive dialogue, as touted on the frontpage? Where does that happen? This follows the same logic as what you present here: if you like the direction, it's good. If you don't, it's mean evil vandalism! These things are typical for a Right Wing Authoritarian mindset (don't confuse with political directions). A little bit of jootsing already screws up your bot program. Of course are you a harasser. How many of such edit wars have there been really? Aren't there at least two parties in such an edit war? In other words, quite literally the very moment I don't submit to your “ownership” you start your coop case harassment, together with more harassment that is certainly to follow as usual (we've been there before). How many sock puppets did you people create — like five? (this is also a fact, not polemitcal) And now that you see that your BS doesn't work out exactly as you would have liked, your smearing and poisoning the well: you claim victimhood — poor victimized me! Well, that's abusive. ~ Aneris ✻ 02:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Another post without actual substance or examples or proof of any of these wild accusations. You're full of hot air. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 02:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

So you admit this is just a troll-coop?Keter (talk) 13:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Logged in to see more Coop dramaz from Kitsunelaine. Holy hell man give it a rest. – Sarah (HH) 04:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Here's what I'm going to do: Give him a 1day ban every time I see him use the terms 'postmodern', 'narrative' or one of his other favourite terms that he doesn't actually understand the meaning of. If anyone cares enough, they can unblock him. He's just your average revert troll, angry that his nonsense gets seen through. A short break every time he gets in a tizzy would cut down on the amount of cleanup we have to do. Queex _{chthonic murmurings} 11:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
That's an excellent idea, Queex. I'll just vandal bin him myself. --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Alternative - Aneris should receive a one month ban[edit]

After reading Kitsunelaine's sources on Aneris' behavior, I agree that his attitude has been unnecessarily aggressive and rude. However, I disagree that he should be vandal binned. I propose instead a one month bad. To explain why, allow me to elucidate what I perceive are the main problems here:

Constant use of meaningless snarl words

Aneris constantly accuses others of being "postmodernists," "SJWs," etc. In most of the discussions these things are brought up in, they have little to no context, and are used as a default insult, rather than in any actual argument. However, I don't see evidence of him using more inappropriate insults (directly demeaning others, etc) very often. He just throws the aforementioned terms at them, which is actually somewhat funny. I'd much rather be called a "postmodernist" than a number of other words.

{This is somewhat worrying for me because I hold the view that a reactionary left exists, and I think postmodern theories and their offshoots are meaningful ways to explain it, as well as valuable ideas in their own right. People who use this concept as a careless insult are the reason why the ideas are often tossed aside as meaningless.}

An apparent agenda, complete with persecution complex

Related to the above point, Aneris always says the postmodernists/SJWs/etc control the wiki with a majority and use this to silence his views. More importantly, Aneris rarely makes non-controversial edits. I can't emphasize the last sentence enough. Most of the edits Aneris makes seem to be related to socially or politically charged issues, and he gets into fights about them accordingly.

So all that being said, I don't think he deserves to be vandal binned. I don't support the vandal bin because it's dangerous to make an editor with minority opinions have to get approval before contributing. He is articulate, and his edits are good enough for him to make valuable contributions to the wiki. His attitude towards other editors has proven uncalled for, and for that reason I advocate a one month ban.

What would help more is if he focused on making non-controversial edits, about apologetics or something, and didn't edit social justice/political pages so much. He'd also have to drop the constant snarl word nonsense. Maybe a one month ban would get that across, and he could be more productive and less antagonistic when he comes back.

If he continues the above behavior after such a ban, I would vote for a permanent ban/vandal binning.

Yes[edit]

(: Lord Aeonian (talk) 02:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Another decent alternative. Well argued. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 02:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

No[edit]

No. Cool down. Calm down. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 04:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
As above. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 04:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
In agreement with the coated feline tuber above - great times. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
брэндэн (talk) 07:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Agree. Bongolian (talk) 08:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
No. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 08:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
We're not your personal goon squad, Kitsune. --Kugelschreiber (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

That's interesting. The other side of the edit war looks like this: Slymepit, Regressive Left, Iliberal Left, Female genital mutilation, Richard Dawkins, Bahar Mustafar, Michael Shermer, (Timeline) GamerGate, Sarkeesian. Everything as you'd expect, smearing in one direction, whitewashing in the other. Throw in Trump and Nixon for a change. If you go back a bit, you also find postmodernism, by sheer happenstance. Guess in which direction. Whenever I cross my path with him (which is actually quite limited considering that he covers the full spectrum and I don't care for most things), he always got the last word. Like literally always. Sometimes I reverted a few times his kneejerk undos, but know it's pointless (which I know). Did that ever cause trouble? That's called hypocrisy. Am I really that one sided, too? I certainly wasted most time on talk pages, like many others. When it concerns mainspace, I believe I did most edits on Discordianism. I recently wrote Galactocentricity, have made edits on Noam Chomsky, Henry Kissinger. I wrote a giant section on Metaphors a while ago, and started and halfway finished a history article on the Christian West (which I deleted yesterday or so). I had a CSS and graphix frenzy in between, too. So, hypocrites? How come that I see certian users ONLY and only in certain corners, and it seems never a problem. But when you run into them a few times, you're the problem. Tell me hypocrites, how is that? Also consider, hypocrites, that when you write a book and leave out every second page, that there is a greater urge to complete what is missing, instead of writing on even further. ~ Aneris ✻ 03:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The Galactocentricity page is good. Bongolian (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I think the issue isn't your edits as much as your attitude. You'd have a much stronger case against Typhoon and such if you didn't start bringing up postmodern ideology at every opportunity, and just focused on the facts. Would make your posts shorter as well. :) Lord Aeonian (talk) 04:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm all ears, how would you describe this case? ~ Aneris ✻ 04:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean? A lot of the links Kitsunelaine provided at the top related to you calling other users postmodernists, SJWs and such. I'm just saying this isn't necessary and accomplishes nothing in any case. Lord Aeonian (talk) 05:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Alternative - Boomerang Binning for Kitsunelaine[edit]

Good goat... A content dispute between a Slymepitter and those who presumably dislike the Slymepit has been turned into an inferno that was raging for about 10 hours thanks to Kitsunelaine pumping petrol onto it. Now, I reckon I don't know enough about whatever the hell the Slymepit vs. anti-Slymepit dispute is to add in my 2 cents on that content issue (which could make me ideal to do so, maybe I should look over it...), but I have seen some behavioral issues tonight that perhaps need to be addressed. I'd suggest Kitsunelaine look in the mirror before pointing the finger and claiming anyone else is "abrasive".

Let's take a look at what happened: Kitsunelaine engaged in edit warring with Aneris over the Slymepit article, not even giving a reason for the reverts of Aneris' edits. Kitsunelaine made no attempt at dispute resolution and did not post to the talk page of the article nor Aneris'. Kitsunelaine tried to protect the article to 'win' the edit war, claiming Aneris had engaged in "excessive vandalism." When that gambit failed, she came roaring straight to the coop to try and get Aneris punished.

Tonight's drama is not the first display of Kitsunelaine's aggressive method of dealing with those she dislikes. Kitsunelaine's earliest edits have her jumping in as a tagteam against Carpetsmoker, and as you can see from this coop page [note: their latest encounter had been pruned by the time I finished writing] this is a score to settle that has been festering ever since October. This coop case would seem to bear evidence of a similar grudge held against Aneris, and it appears that may be the case as she has been clashing with him since November.

From the get-go when she began editing, it's clear Kitsunelaine was treating the wiki as a battleground as she and her tagteam partner sought to use RW to slander a fanbase as pedophiles. This battleground behavior continued, a few examples: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Escalating things to the coop is also not a new tactic, as she tried to do the same thing to Paravant when he got on her bad side. Neither is threatening editors with bans. This behavior ran Carpetsmoker out of here (someone who was very polite when I asked him for help) and it looks like Aneris is next on the "chopping block" she threatened Carpetsmoker with; how many more editors will it cost if nothing is done?

I've mainly edited Wikipedia so it is a bit of a culture shock to watch what goes on here in some aspects, which is to be expected from a project with a mission like this which brings in all sorts of editors. :) The behavioral issues on the other hand are a bit hard to fathom with certain editors such as Kitsunelaine thinking they can do whatever they want and everyone else is to blame, even if she does the same things she is trying to get other people sanctioned for.

It has been ~~noted~~ griped about that Kitsunelaine has a frantic editing style; she tends to rapidly shoot from the hip - and shoot herself in the foot - so perhaps some time in the Vandal Bin can give her the chance to slow down and think about what she is typing instead of the usual fanning of the flames?

Yes[edit]

Long shot but if Aneris goes, so goes kitsulaine? брэндэн (talk) 19:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

No[edit]

This is the most ridiculously one-sided summary of the recent incident. If anything, it makes me think that it's Lightning Dust who has some grudge against Kitsunelaine. Aneris has been edit-waring with multiple people over the Slymepit article, not just Kitsunelaine. This is because Aneris is a member of that forum, and thus is determined to white-wash our article on it. Typhoon (talk) 10:03, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
If there's not enough substance to do anything about Aneris, there is even less substance to do anything about me. What I find impressive is the relatively one-sided portrayal of the aforementioned clashes, especially regarding Carpetsmoker (And bringing up the MLP stuff? Seriously?). And it's not like there weren't serious concerns with the way Paravant had been abusing his moderation powers against Ryulong, almost always on a whim. So let's look at this stuff in order.
Accusing me of edit warring with Aneris and saying I didn't give a justification is not quite correct. For the first couple of reverts, yes, but once Aneris blocked me, as evidenced in the case against him, I explained fully. This happened before the page protection attempt, if memory serves. The user in question's additions to the article had been constantly reverted, usually for similar reasons. And as this has been a long standing issue with him at that page, I do feel like it qualified "Excessive vandalism". I think it is quite the distortion to claim that I'm the sole person involved in the Slymepit disputes, as multiple editors have repeatedly had issues with the user in question's additions.

My earliest edits weren't the best, I will admit that much. However, to use them against me today, months later, having had more experience with the site and it's community, is a disingenuous tactic. The time to question them would have been back then. I have pruned down my prior abrasiveness considerably (Or at least been trying to).

Tonight's coop drama was Carpetsmoker wishing to bring up his personal beef with me in an incredibly indirect way. I am not one to let things simmer and boil when they don't have to. Needless to say, my issues with Carpetsmoker are incredibly personal, as they revolve around a shit-ton of bad off-site activity, as I have elaborated numerous times.

Moreover, to claim I have a long-standing problematic grudge with Aneris is accurate, but only to a point. Everything I told him tonight is true. I have been avoiding him like the plague to avoid surplus drama for the past couple of months, outside of shoddy mainspace edits. The grudge isn't quite problematic, but me bringing up this coop case was not personal. It was because I have been watching how this said user has been interacting with other users of this site since I've got here, and it has been troubling. This was an effort to resolve that-- as evidenced by my desire to bin him, and not ban him.

The "Slander a fanbase as pedophiles" thing is incredibly silly and I'm amazed you even brought it up. Our articles should not exist to whitewash the fact that people draw lots of fanart of characters that are mostly protrayed as underage, as a major facet of it's fandom. Moreover, the status of that article was kind of pathetic in how much it served as a, for lack of a better term, propaganda piece. And a lot of the backlash surrounding that was kind of insane. Both Ryulong and I were getting reverted for adding even the mildest criticisms, and were being accused of ridiculous things, like being on an "Anti-MLP Jihad". To paint that whole debacle as purley one-sided is a massive distortion of events, to say the least. Also of note, a major contributor to that steaming garbage fire, Arisboch, has since been banned for pretty serious reasons.

I cooped Paravant because he was blatantly abusing his mod power with an incredible ammount of prejudice on a pure knee-jerk reaction to anything Ryulong edited. I recall digging up quite a few examples. It was not an "Escalation", it was an action taken born from a pretty big problem.

I didn't threaten to ban Carpetsmoker. I threatened to coop him. Difference. And it was because, after a lot of terrible things he'd done, I was focusing on avoiding him and contributing to the wiki, but, as I've elaborated elsewhere today already, he kept on poking and prodding and wouldn't let anything go. Carpetsmoker ran, because he kept bringing up issues in a passive agressive manner intended to stab at me without actually addressing them, and when I made a point of forcing the issue to be raised, and didn't let him deflect the questions as he is an expert at doing, he went to a subreddit that has been dedicated to mocking us and harassing our editors (It had to get told off by reddit admins for spreading doxx too) and complained about it. When that was brought up here, and called out, he ran. It's as simple as that. And if you look at the freaking ridiculous things he's said to me on here tonight, I struggle to see why you think he is a figure worthy of defending.

My editing style is a noted problem. It has been something I've been working on since Tielec01 brought it up on my talk page, and I've been trying to make as many posts as I can in one hit only. But sometimes, matters are far too sensitive, and I think of important information to add after the fact.

This proposal is incredibly one-sided, and contains a massive distortion of events, ignoring the contributing factors from many of the members in question, treating it as if my behavior was in isolation and unprompted. It was not. Moreover, I have been making a point to avoid as much drama as I can, though Carpetsmoker returning was unignorable, given our immense differences and the manner he came back in. It should also be noted that he came here purley to start shit with me, and that I'm somehow being made into the bad guy for not simply ignoring it and leaving the matter burning beneath the surface, waiting to explode in a worse manner at at later time.

If you think my language and intensity is a concern, know that it's something that I'm aware of, and have been taking many steps to mitigate. My responses to Carpetsmoker tonight were the work of incredible restraint, because of the outrageously offensive personal attacks he had slung at me. My language to start out with there was strong, for sure, which I regret, though the content and meaning behind it I stand by 100%. Importantly, it did not come unprompted, and I am so, so damn tired of Carpetsmoker drama. Drama in general, really. Regardless, I shall continue to work on it, as I have been, and hope that some day you change your mind, though it looks relatively set already. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 10:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
"my issues with Carpetsmoker are incredibly personal, as they revolve around a shit-ton of bad off-site" -> Lies. 14 posts on Kiwi Farms, maybe 20 or 30 on WikiInAction, most to defend this site after I found them in Google.

"it was because, after a lot of terrible things he'd done" -> haha, what, did I punch someone? Steal candy from a child? Had a cell phone conversation in a movie theatre? No really, you keep repeating this sort of stuff, and never do you back it up with basic statements on what exactly the problem is. If the best you can do is disagreeing with you on four or five occasions over a period of months, starting the umpteempth coop case about one of the most problematic editors this site has seen, and making a few random forum posts, then you need to get some perspective on what constitutes "terrible".

"I was focusing on avoiding him and contributing to the wiki, but, as I've elaborated elsewhere today already, he kept on poking and prodding and wouldn't let anything go" -> Your "focus" on contributing to the wiki consist of what, 6 paragraphs of text? Wow. Where is the editor of the year award! And your notion that "he kept on poking and prodding and wouldn't let anything go" is basically not accepting your bullshit. In every discussion you straw man, ignore inconvenient facts, are incredibly hostile (not just to me), and sidetrack the conversation with irrelevant nonsense. It was you who consistently escalates things whenever I make any offhand comment that's even remotely critical of either you or your buddyroid; two people who seem hellbent on making RationalWiki an even greater laughing stock than it already is. At least Ryulong actually contributed to the edited the wiki (although the way he did it was problematic, to say the least). You're not here to make a better wiki to fight pseudoscience, you're here to fight out personal grudges and push an extremely biased POV on a very narrow set of issues. Carpetsmoker (talk) 11:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
You were defending this site at the expense of a few users you personally held a grudge against. You were looking for a place to vent, not to defend the site. There's nothing wrong with this on it's own, but there is when we're dealing with a blatantly obvious hate group, one of which is creepily obsessive to an extreme degree. Moreover, you were constantly concern trolling for these people, and you had made many efforts to undermine what had previously been a pretty firm grip in handling it. You sought to let the floodgates open and expose the members of this site to everything that came with it, and I must say, you did a good job. This was a desire born from a hatred of Ryulong so deep that you were unable to even consider that he may have been right on the whole Gamergate front. Moreover, despite the carnage the opening of these floodgates has left in it's wake (Of which you were not solely responsible for, but had a reasonable enough hand in it), you showed no remorse, and continued these efforts.

Also, WiA was made pretty explicitly to follow Ryulong around and harass him, though it has since been expanded in scope. It is rather amusing how your attempts at defending this site always seem to revolve around going to places focused on hating him in particular.

And the KF shit is completely unjustifiable. Anyone who spends five seconds in there knows what that place is about. You posting in there does not do you any favours, intending to defend this site or not.

You attack my mainspace edits with a massive ammount of fire as if it means something. No, behind the scenes edits are just as important, and without them, a wiki would not work.

Your comments towards me are hardly critical. They are hateful, and spiteful, and that is what I respond to. If you made any effort to have a show of good faith, it would be recieved in kind, but you appear, at least presently, incapable of doing so.

And finally, complaints of "Bias" are always ridiculous, because every viewpoint is biased. If everyone thought the same way, we would all be robots, you're just upset I don't hold the same values you do. - Kitsunelaine ^{「SJW Illuminati shill.」} 12:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
"you were constantly concern trolling for these people, and you had made many efforts to undermine what had previously been a pretty firm grip in handling it. " -> Haha, These are such gross lies that I don't even know where to start. No really. I got downvoted to hell more than upvoted there and had running disagreements with a few people there. To call me a "concern troll" is just so incredibly stupid that I lack the language to accurately describe it.

"WiA was made pretty explicitly to follow Ryulong around" -> Geez, the exact same thing we've been doing to Conservapedia for almost ten years. They just laugh at his silly antics, just as we laugh at Andy's (and many other's) silly antics. Nothing special here. Move along. Don't like it? That's okay. Don't read it. At least they're not trying to chase away one of their own because they don't like him. To call it a "hate group" is just ... pfff ... almost (but not quite) as ridiculous as your accusations of me concern trolling "for them".

"You sought to let the floodgates open and expose the members of this site to everything that came with it" -> Lol, what nonsense. I already showed you that I didn't exactly invite anyone, and "floodgates", haha. That's just funny. Carpetsmoker (talk) 12:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
You spread their concerns to this site. You don't have to be popular to concern troll for them. More than once I remember when something was brought up over there, you fought for it over here. You're a firm believer in "Two sides to every story", and it's gonna backfire sometime, man.

"They just laugh at his silly antics" What antics? They're following around a person they hate because they think he's biased. They're stalkers, dude. Also, it wasn't the subreddit that I called a hate group, but the movement that it represents. The subreddit is a part of that group, like it or not.

On "Floodgates"; You came to there as a representative from here pretty quickly after having vandal binned Ryulong. Indeed, all your early posts are ranting about him, right alongside the people who get off on doing so. You were trying to chum up, and it backfired spectacularly. - Kitsunelaine ^{「SJW Illuminati shill.」} 12:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
"What antics", haha, yeah. That's the problem right there.

"all your early posts are ranting about him" -> That is not exactly true. It was in the middle of the MLP drama (where you and Ryulong were right and the rest of the wiki was wrong, lol) and basically copy/pasted some comments I made on RW as well as offered some context on how RW works, and that RW has more content. Some were snarky perhaps, but "ranting about him"? Nah. Really. Stop lying. Even if it was true. I ranted about an asshole editor. Boo hoo. Go start a coop case about it. At least I did it publicly with my own name and didn't say anything I hadn't already said here. At least I didn't try to backchannel weasel my way into people taking action with lies. I have nothing to hide.

As for "spreading concerns", that is because some are correct. Dismissing it as "concern trolling" is a stupid and transparent attempt at handwaving it away. As for backfiring, it was RationalWiki that hurt the most. I will keep writing. But not on RationalWiki. It was you who decided to chase me off on a minor banality (although, to get the record straight, it was David's nodding approval of your nonsense that got me annoyed enough to actually get up and leave). Carpetsmoker (talk) 13:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Tielec01 (talk) 11:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Give it an effin' rest with the wannabe bin-/ban hammer will ya? ScepticWombat (talk) 15:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
--Castaigne2 (talk) 16:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
No.--Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 20:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Don't be fucking stupid, Brenden. Queex _{chthonic murmurings} 09:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

If we could corral Kitsunelaine's... enthusiasm and direct it towards content instead of fighting and raging at the list of enemies she has accrued here that would obviously be the way to go, but I don't think that'll happen. :/ Not that I expect this proposal to have traction either, but hopefully it should be a "wake up call" as they say. This kind of combative behavior is toxic and not helpful for a collaborative project like a wiki. I will confess that I gave up trying to work on one of the articles I came here to improve as I did not want to deal with Kitsunelaine and her tagteam partner of the time which had decided to own it. I suffer anxiety and severe depression and can't deal with conflict very well and seeing the way Carpetsmoker was treated tonight assures me I made the right choice. I wish it wasn't me who felt the need to speak up after reading the hateful words spewed on the coop tonight. :( Lightning Dust (talk) 09:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
You can't deal with conflict, which is why you're right now trying to escalate the current one with this farcical request? Huh. Anyway, you have, as you mentioned, "anxiety and severe depression"? Anything else? I'm sure you have one or two more medical conditions that you could use as weapons against other users in here. Typhoon (talk) 10:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

It's interesting you mention you're afraid of conflict, because I'm not the source of conflict here. Though I'm pretty sure you're well aware of that, given the ridiculously one-sided proposal you've suggested. Especially considering how Carpetsmoker has literally said he did it because it "seemed like fun". Doesn't really have the ring of an innocent participant, does it? Moreover, don't you have to have a certain number of edits to start a Coop case? (I know you do to vote, but I don't know otherwise). You don't even have fifty. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 10:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Lets look at this user's mainspace edits vs. yours. He added 18,775 characters. You 4,514. Pure character comparisons aren't entirely fair, but it's almost four times more. So lets compensate with 100%, and I think it's fair to say that Lightning Dust is quite literally twice the editor you are. Carpetsmoker (talk) 11:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Uh-huh. Behind the scenes stuff is completely irrelevant. Toooooootally. Has no bearing on the outcome of a page's text. Totally worthless. Yeah. All the times I've blocked and reverted trolls and the like also don't count towards my productivity as an editor to the site. You really have me pegged down. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 11:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
No, that doesn't count, as I have every reason to believe that most "trolls" that you deal with are either people who wronged you slightly or even imaginary. Trolls! Trolls everywhere! But no one sees them except a select few! Besides, "behind the scenes" is toxic crap. Your stupid and vile hatred against me was fed "behind the scenes" in your little echo chamber with lies and look where that got us. Carpetsmoker (talk) 11:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Um, you clearly haven't been paying any attention at all. Has hate blinded you so? - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 11:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Nowhere have you offered any evidence that I have seen; but it's entirely possible that I missed it. As for hate, that's rich, coming from the person who talks about me in roughly the same way a drunken klansman talks about dem fuckin' niggers. Carpetsmoker (talk) 11:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Comparing me to the KKK for having a dissenting view. Lovely. - Kitsunelaine ^{「SJW Illuminati shill.」} 12:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
No, I'm doing so for calling me a "foul creature" (I believe with emphasis), "insufferable moron", who wants to "deprive the site (or people, I forgot) of oxygen", and more in a similar vein. I have no interest in re-reading it. Carpetsmoker (talk) 12:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Uh, no. You really haven't been reading anything I've been saying. I was the one who wanted to deprive the drama of oxygen. Whiiiich was the stated reason as to why I didn't open up any more wounds and sought to convene with the mods in private. Whiiiich was what you were complaining about. It was a response to you. Not an attack. An explanation. - Kitsunelaine ^{「SJW Illuminati shill.」} 12:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Ah, so I misremembered one comment in your vile ranting last month. My apologies. Perhaps it was the emotional stress. Now, how about the dozens of other vile and hateful comments? Did I also misread them? Carpetsmoker (talk) 12:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
You act like they were unprompted. I'm pretty sure I remember you making a lot of effort to take me down a peg whenever you had a chance. Pot calling the kettle black. - Kitsunelaine ^{「SJW Illuminati shill.」} 12:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
"making a lot of effort to take me down a peg whenever you had a chance" -> Nope. Carpetsmoker (talk) 13:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Do we have a Godwin for klansmen? Coz you're engaging in one right now. And because of it you look increasingly ridiculous. Typhoon (talk) 12:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey Carpetsmoker. Can you also count my edits? Since you're now deciding who's a REAL editor and who isn't. Typhoon (talk) 11:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Not me who started dickswinging about edit counts. I just applied a different metric and got very different results. Carpetsmoker (talk) 11:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
How is a question of rules dickswinging? Also, uh, you literally tried to say the same thing in the big fight earlier. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 11:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I indeed made many remarks about your lack of contributions couples with your great arrogance in attempting to impose your will on other editors from the very moment you arrived. But I never claimed you weren't allowed to vote, open coop cases, or otherwise do things any other editor would. So no, I did not "literally tried to say the same thing". Carpetsmoker (talk) 11:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I guess you missed the suggestion that I was referring to the fact that you indeed started dickswinging about edit counts, and you seem to think it's a rather important thing. Indeed, your goal here is to imply I'm unworthy. My words above are purely asking for clarification on the site's rules. I am not using them as a merit to judge a person's worth. - Kitsunelaine ^{「SJW Illuminati shill.」} 12:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Bit rich to hear complaints from Carpetsmoker about arrogance, since right now you're wasting time spewing how much you loathe Kitsunelaine. How about you do something more productive instead? Typhoon (talk) 12:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Back from your extended stay with WikiInAction and the Kiwi Farms, huh? Very interesting to see who shows up when one of his targets gets put up on the slab. --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Let's see, check your contribs...ah. I see. Well, I can go ahead and discount anything you say. Ah, the agendas one sees... --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:03, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Can we add Castaigne to the list of people to remove, seeing how he's here pushing a ridiculous POV anyways?брэндэн (talk) 20:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Ban them both for a month[edit]

For being unpirate AND unninja at the same time.--Kugelschreiber (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Don't forget being ungoat. Bongolian (talk) 18:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I actually like this idea seriously. Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Resolution[edit]

Vast majority of votes is for no action in every category. No action. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 14:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Castaigne[edit]

LANCBUser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · vandal log · block log)
Castaigne2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · vandal log · block log)

Problem[edit]

Of new account's 692 edits, 567 (81.9%) are talk: 126 talk, 136 user talk, 284 project (ie, the coop, the bar), 11 project talk, 2 category talk, 1 essay talk, 1 debate, 6 forum. A user who mostly talks is not disruptive to the wiki; a user who mostly talks in order to drag down others is disruptive to the wiki.

Is user disruptive?

First, sysop abuse:

(change visibility) 03:40, 16 February 2016 Castaigne2 (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Carpetsmoker (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 314159 seconds (about 3.6 days) (account creation disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (Boring repetitive reversions: + violation of talk page rules) (unblock | change block)
(change visibility) 02:51, 16 February 2016 Castaigne2 (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Carpetsmoker (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 31415 seconds (about 9 hours) (account creation disabled) (Altering talk page outside of rules.) (unblock | change block)

This appears almost entirely tendentious; although Carpetsmoker had been moving around comments on his talkpage, this was in part because of how vitriolic Castaigne was. This brings the second point:

Second, bullying: (I don't know what else to call it)

Welcome back from your extended stay with WikiInAction and the Kiwi Farms. Who are you doxxing for Kiwi Farms now? Inquiring minds love to know! [11]

No, let's not, since if I don't get to play silly buggers with my talk page, you don't get to play it with yours. The rules will apply to us equally and we will both be obedient, like good little users. And I didn't say doxing WAS a bad thing. I just asked who you were doxing. You could have just as easily said "No one." Behold, a two word sentence that answers the question! I don't know where you got the idea that I said doxing was bad, considering I never mentioned it. Guilty conscience, I must assume. Though why you would feel guilty about it, I am unsure. Give it up, Carpetsmoker. Either edit like a normal human being or go back to your self-imposed exile again. (Oh, and your quotation use fucks up the page; I introduced some clarity and parsimony for you.)[12]

Yeah, fuck off on that, bro. We already know who Sorcha Faal actually is. It's not some milspec disinfo op. Peddle that shit to Alex Jones. And sign your crap. Also, you fucked up my goddamn talk page with your shit editing. [13]

That's the light stuff. Then we see:

This gigantic wall of text on his talk page [14].
This gigantic wall of text on Kugelschreiber's talk page [15], which he was quite adamant about [16][17].

I'm trying to ensure you get the message, which obviously you have failed to do, because you're fucking shit at reading comprehension. What part of "stop commenting here" are you not getting? Let me be clear - for every comment you leave here, that'll be two that get left on your page. Do you understand now or do I need to provide examples? Are you getting the cluebat being slammed into your face repeatedly? [18]

It's not spam, shit-for-brains. What part of "Comment here again and you get double the comments on your own page." do you not fucking understand? Are you retarded, you fucking cum stain? [19]

Could you sound like more of a prat? Even I, at my most bombastic, don't sound so much like a scolding kindergarten teacher. [20]

Well, since you lack the reading comprehension to understand what was being said, I would call it the necessary amount of dictation required to allow something to seep through that thick fucking skull of yours. If we were in person, mong loving nutsack handle, right now I'd be slapping you every time you opened your mouth. Yes, I'm being serious here. You're apparently one of those who only understands physical instruction. Must make educating a bitch for you. Degenerate and base you are, friend of a dick tranny rider. You are absolutely determined for me to have fun with you. Well, my dear erection basher, I have never been one to pass up invitations. [21]

I'm trying to ensure you get the message, which obviously you have failed to do, because you're fucking shit at reading comprehension. What part of "stop commenting here" are you not getting? Let me be clear - for every comment you leave here, that'll be two that get left on your page. Do you understand now or do I need to provide examples? Are you getting the cluebat being slammed into your face repeatedly? And this isn't spam, dipshit. This is ME REPEATEDLY TELLING YOU TO FUCK OFF BECAUSE CLEARLY YOU DON'T GET IT. IT'S A LEGITIMATE COMMENT, DICKFACE. JUST IMAGINE ME SCREAMING IT AT THE TOP OF MY LUNGS REPEATEDLY. [22]

All of these were from Castaigne's last 100 edits. These are not isolated examples; anyone who has interacted with him can attest that he is virtually always hostile, abrasive, and condescending in his comments. While Men's Rights EXTREMIST might be wrong, and disgustingly so, they do not go after users in the way Castaigne does.

(And before anyone asks, no, this is not a result of TruthTellah's edit. I made this case yesterday and talked a bit about it with Paravant.)

Resolution[edit]

It is safe to say that Castaigne's actions hurt RationalWiki's community far more than they help it.

I move that Castaigne be desysopped and put on probation -- if he attacks other users, he should face a ban. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 17:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Using "tranny" as an insult? I thought he was such a strong proponent of social justice. Guess he never was, and just wanted to pick a fight. Also, get ready for his famous 'tone policing' argument :D Lord Aeonian (talk) 17:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I have never been a strong proponent of social justice. I keep telling you; I'm not a leftist nor an SJW. --Castaigne2 (talk) 17:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I submit that you are doing this simply as a revenge tactic, FCP. Seriously, tell the truth and shame the devil, as the saying goes. You're pissed that I don't take well to your campaign to make RatWiki into the Randi Foundation replacement you want it to be. And let's have a truthful record; let's have the last 5000 records on both and let people judge the totality instead of a carefully selected window of time. --Castaigne2 (talk) 17:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Uh... I just put the last 100 because it's relatively standard. It's easy enough for people to expand the range. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 17:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

You're prevaricating again, FCP. Remember, the political is the personal. --Castaigne2 (talk) 17:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Right. Castaigne, the most you've done to attack my vision of RW was that time you spammed 10 pages with your "omg someone said snark can be bad so I'm going to remove EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE of snark" edits and then editwarred when people tried to clean up your mess. I think that says a lot about you. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 17:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey, I just did what you asked for, removal of the SPOV you so despise. Don't complain that it isn't what you really wanted. See Jackass Genie. It served as a good reminder that you need to be careful what you wish for. --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm curious as to what you think Casta has done that puts him in a separate category from people like Aneris. Is there some vague threshold where the site is actually concerned about dealing with assholes? - Kitsunelaine ^{「SJW Illuminati shill.」} 18:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that would be the "FCP, Paravant, and Carpetsmoker Dislike" faction. I mean, if we're going to be completely honest about it. I can even predict who exactly will vote where. --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

If you want me to be honest, Casta, I'd probably vote against you as well. You haven't exactly built up a positive reputation here, whether you agree with me on some minor issues or not. - Kitsunelaine ^{「SJW Illuminati shill.」} 18:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of how you would vote. As for "positive reputation", I have never aspired to be a lickspittle or suck-up anywhere I go. So-called positive reputations are garnered by acquiescence, obedience, and fawning sycophancy. I've never been interested in that. --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

So for you it's either treating people like shit or kissing their ass?--Kugelschreiber (talk) 19:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

No, I would say it's "Treat people like I normally do or kiss their ass.". If you think I treat people like shit, then I'd have to question whether you lived in a pollyanna hippy commune or something. When I treat people like shit, it's very evident. This is just oh-look-it's-a-day-ending-in-y in how I treat people. If we ever meet IRL, do not expect me to be any different than how I am online. I don't recognize a difference between the two mediums. --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Then you really would not get along well in any community. It must be a lonely life. - Kitsunelaine ^{「SJW Illuminati shill.」} 19:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I actually get along fine amongst the communities I choose. I've never been lonely. --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Well I'm happy for you in that respect, then. Though you really should learn how to adapt and grow. There's no point in artificially stunting your ability to mingle like this. You're just putting yourself through needless conflict. - Kitsunelaine ^{「SJW Illuminati shill.」} 19:35, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

(EC)"[A]cquiescence, obedience, and fawning sycophancy"? Is that what polite, respectful conversation looks like to you? Disagreements can and should be had without hostility or venality. MarmotHead (talk) 19:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

If not honestly meant? Yeah. Of course, we're probably talking at cross-purposes in terms of what "polite" and "respect" are. "Polite" is the civil action you take when speaking to your superior. Respect is something given when you fear and will absolutely obey the object of respect. So, for instance, you do not respect me, because you do not fear and obey.

As for the rest, I disregard tone argument. --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Tone argument? I'm not asserting your rightness/wrongness based on your tone. I'm just saying your tone is annoying. From your definitions, yeah, we do differ in what we understand "polite" and "respect" to mean. You've got a very hierarchical power-oriented definition. I'm all about being nice to strangers who are neither superiors nor worthy of fear. MarmotHead (talk) 19:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

My tone may be annoying to you, but that should irrelevant because tone is irrelevant. But that's another conversation.

And yes, I do have a very hierarchical power-oriented definition of things. And I keep telling people this. And no one pays any attention whatsoever, and then people are shocked that I'm acting in a hierarchical, power-oriented way. As a matter of fact, I tell people exactly what I'm going to do or exactly what I think and then they're always shocked/surprised/horrified that (Behold!) it occurs in the exact fashion that was indicated.

But I doubt you're in the mood for a round of "People do not listen." --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Hah, I called the tone argument at the very beginning. FCP, give me a cookie. As for what you're saying, think of it this way:

I disagree.
I disagree. Fuck you.

Sure, the disagreement is the same, but which is honestly more productive and helpful? This whole "hierarchical power-oriented" thing sounds like a red pill trope. Lord Aeonian (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm the wrong person to ask. I honestly would say that neither is more productive or helpful; they are both exactly equal. I would respond equally to either since I don't see a difference.

And no, I'm not a red-piller. I'm a pre-Burkean conservative with a fondness for authoritarianism. --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Alright, then consider this - what's productive in a social setting will depend on being able to relate and convince others. Look at my examples again, but now put them in the context of a job interview. Once more, the disagreement is the same, and you would say there are equal, but there is clearly a better choice. You're not an editor in a vacuum. And the social norms here - focus on the argument and not the person - are not radical or restrictive.

"I'm a pre-Burkean conservative with a fondness for authoritarianism." So...you're a monarchist? Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

People are convinced by facts. Present the facts. They will either be accepted or rejected. I don't go around "convincing" people; I'm not in Sales and never will be. As for job interviews, I slap down my resume, answer the questions that are asked of me, and leave it at that. I don't need to do anything else; my answers and experience and credentials are all that are required.

To me, you seem to be emotionally invested in the response you receive. You also don't recognize that a person IS the idea they espouse. There is no difference between the argument, the idea, and the person. You ARE what you espouse. Remove the argument/idea and you have a mindless biological robot shell.

As for social norms, shit son, I'm exactly like the vast majority of the internet. You see them all over the place - Reddit, the chans, Yahoo comments, Youtube comments. That IS the social norm.

And mostly a monarchist, yeah. I'll accept other authoritarian arrangements, though. --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Aneris, from the troll-website Slymepit, has been throwing ridiculous insults and conspiracy theories at me and anyone who disagrees with his views and edits for months now. Yet, for some reason he gets a free pass from FCP. And the one time he was brought to the Coop in order to bin (not ban) him, some people complained about 'ideological' bans, while ignoring his long history of unhinged behavior.

So... I guess it's now my turn to say that some people are right now trying to punish Castaigne2 for entirely ideological reasons. Typhoon (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Funny how Castaigne2 throws around insults and claims everyone who disagrees with him is, to quote him, "people...who have a chip on their shoulders towards what they like to term as the EVOL SJW CABAL CONSPIRACY." Why do you only call it an ideological ban when it's against someone with your sympathies?

Either punish neither of them or punish them both. Lord Aeonian (talk) 19:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

That's the thing. Aneris' lack of punishment has set a precedent, which in FCP's mind apparently doesn't apply to Castaigne2. FCP is being selective in his anti-bullying fight. Typhoon (talk) 19:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. FCP isn't a supreme court. The Aneris coop was decided by majority votes in favor of Aneris, and I believe - regardless of your objections - that Castaigne2 will get off the same way. Lord Aeonian (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

So far, people are just pointing out Castaigne's annoying traits. I think Castaigne should consider a sriracha enema, but banishing him? Nah. MarmotHead (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

But is being annoying enough to now open a coop case? Why was then Aneris' coop closed without any punishment? Guess it's because Aneris hasn't yet annoyed FCP. Typhoon (talk) 19:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Is it enough? It shouldn't be, but apparently it is. You're right. MarmotHead (talk) 19:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

A sysop banning a sysop is more or less standard fare and at worst not much more than a very minor nuisance. You should tone down on the flaming and edit-warring, though (and don't vandalize other people's talk pages or try to delete other people's talk page edits from any talk page (your's or not), if they're not spam).--Kugelschreiber (talk) 18:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I supported the proposed Aneris ban, so I'll support FCP's proposal, for the same reasons - the user is harassing others. Although at least Aneris' attacks are more funny than anything. Nothing like being passionately called a "postmodernist." Castaigne2's insults aren't even original. Lord Aeonian (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Aneris has went on to get at least one New Atheist blogger to shit on this wiki. Aneris is primarily a slymepitter, has no love for this wiki, has been complaining about us long before registering in here, and would gladly burn this place down just to 'stick it to the postmodernist SJW fascists'. Yet it's Castaigne2 that FCP is concerned about. Typhoon (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

(EC) They're both obnoxious blowhard attention-whores who turn most everything they touch to shit. We shouldn't have to pick one or the other nor take sides in their dick-swinging contests. Wēāŝēīōīď

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I pretty much agree, which is why I'm curious about what puts them in an apparently separate category here. - Kitsunelaine ^{「SJW Illuminati shill.」} 19:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

How is this an "apparently seperate category?" We had a coop for Aneris, now we're having a coop for Castaigne2 (which people are trying to call like it's already been decided). Lord Aeonian (talk) 19:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The coop previously decided that Aneris's behavior wasn't worth acting on. Then it tries to coop a person with similar behavior, and some people who previously were against it are for it. My question was solely to FCP above, but the idea that this case is being considered after such a smack down earlier is what interests me. I simply wish the site to have clearer, and perhaps stricter, standards on dealing with people who are only here to be assholes. - Kitsunelaine ^{「SJW Illuminati shill.」} 19:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

But that's the thing - the case did have a smackdown in favor of Aneris, since the community values free space. There's no reason to assume it will turn out differently this time. Your whole complaint seems to be that the case is "being considered" at all, which doesn't seem very meaningful. If the community votes differently this time, then you may have a point. Lord Aeonian (talk) 19:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

FCP's first post gives quite a bit of evidence that Castaigne2 has some obsessions of his own. This argument is basically whataboutism. I think they should both be punished, for the same reasons. The same community which protected Aneris will likely protect Castaigne2 as well, in any case. Lord Aeonian (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Nope. I can predict exactly how the vote will go. FCP will get what he wants. --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Well that's worrying if true. Aneris came to here from a forum infamous for harassment and doxing. Yet you're the one labeled as a bully? Typhoon (talk) 19:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

More complete bullshit. Slymepit is strictly anti-doxing. I'm anti-doxing. Your gang is not, especially not Castaigne. You also claimed a few times I did dox another user, because I mentioned his screen name (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) in the Slymepit back then. You're a complete bullshitter. ~ Aneris ✻ 03:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Do you both really believe that the RW community (strongly liberal) would favor Aneris (whose views end up seeming paleoconservative) over Castaigne2? Wow, talk about conspiracy. Lord Aeonian (talk) 19:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I personally think we shouldn't place bets on something like this until a vote has been cast. Behavior like this might likely only fuel the outcome you all think would happen. - Kitsunelaine ^{「SJW Illuminati shill.」} 19:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Why not vandalbin him like we did with Avenger; I doubt that desysoping him will do anything to his behavior.--Owlman (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Can we vandalbin anyone for bad behavior, or does this only apply to people FCP hates? Typhoon (talk) 19:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The guy used to make physical threats against users and constantly brags about doxing people. When Avenger was being antisemitic and constantly editing warring with Mona and other users over I/P articles we banned him; when Ryu started edit warring with users over Gamergate and MLP we banned him; when Arisboch asked for a user's doxed info he was banned. So, Typhoon, I don't think you know who you are defending.--Owlman (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Banned? I've never been banned. I think you've confused me with someone else. --Castaigne2 (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

"Constantly brag[ging] about doxing people"? What? Do we have that on record? ℕoir LeSable (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, Castaigne, I didn't say you were banned. Secondly, I can't seem to find his comment, but after that doxing incident he and Mona got into an argument and he said that he had the IRL info on the doxers, but refused to share it because "the wiki doesn't allow doxed information". Now this was probably a lie, but he has been playing this role for some time now.--Owlman (talk) 22:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Are we sure the "Castaigne" persona isn't some kind of... performance art? I mean, I've seen people go on for years 'in character' on various forums - fictional families, talking in the third person, pretending to be Navy SEAL/SWAT/snipers, etc. As FuzzyCatPotato has shown with but a few snippets of evidence when he made this case, the persona is quite toxic. Here is but a few examples I saw when going through some of his old account's diffs. Here he threatens that if he "decides a troll needs to be taken care of" he will dox them and implies that he got someone arrested, he then follows up and says he's been doxing/going after people for 25+ years. This incident continues as Castaigne offers to give his address to the other editor so they can go assault each other in real life. In this diff Castaigne talks about doxing Arisboch and FCP, but then says he wouldn't do it because doxing isn't tolerated here, but he does think it is a "valid tactic". Here is Castaigne saying he is in favor of using doxing "as a weapon", and here he comments about how "lame" the doxing of Randi Harper was because it didn't have her SSN/address/bank account/credit cards. In this diff, Castaigne boasts that he has vandalized property belonging to a debt collection agency, then continues by saying he "doesn't give a shit about doxing as a tactic" and brags that he used to DDoS attack people and send them "stink bombs in the mail." Castaigne has also voiced his fantasies about assaulting and murdering Milo Yiannopolous. Some more diffs where Castaigne advocates doxing, claims it is "legit", says he could pay $35-50 and dox anyone he wanted to, and sees nothing wrong with the "value-neutral tool" of doxing. In this diff, Castaigne threatens he would "go after them IRL" if a "troll" angered him enough. In another conversation Castaigne says he is intentionally being "kinder" than usual because he's on RationalWiki and normally he would "already be gearing up to make the kid's life a living hell." Here he hurls insults at a BoN for not having an account.

If Castaigne is some kind of tryhard, "internet tough guy" role player then I can sort of see why some people want to hand wave this away; it's still bile being spewed but at least they know it's all a joke, right? However, if this is not an act, how can this be defensible behavior? Lightning Dust (talk) 02:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Earlier in this page, Castaigne elucidated his personal philsophy, and after reading the links you provided, I think he may have some sort of sociopathic mental disorder. I do not by any means wish to use mental illness as a cheap insult, Castaigne asserts many times that:

He does not care what others think or feel, or how they react, and feels no reason he should, and
There is no difference between his online behavior and his IRL behavior, and his outlook is the same as well

He could be a huge troll, but going back years...that's quite persistent for a troll. He could also just be a huge asshole, but he doesn't seem to even understand why people object to him. Lord Aeonian (talk) 05:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, LightningDust and Aeonian, for providing those links. Sorry I didn't do that myself.--Owlman (talk) 05:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Good god[edit]

The difference between Castaigne and Aneris is that the former bullies people but the latter merely edit-wars, and often with people who are edit-warrers themselves (looking at you, Kitsu). When Castaigne fights, people get attacked; when Aneris fights, ideas get (badly) attacked. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 20:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The edit wars were also rare and recent. I discovered that Typhoon and others always revert, never argue and get away with it. At some point I decided I have to stick up for the edits and not accept their drive-by reverts. They then made a huge manufactuversy about it. In reality, when it became clear that mobocracy hath spoken, I never went against it. ~ Aneris ✻ 21:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I will never understand why there are users here who will defend people like Ryu and Castaigne until they die. I know Arisboch tended to defend Avenger, but he even admitted Avenger was problematic while Typhoon seems to think Castaigne is completely innocent and is actually being persecuted.--Owlman (talk) 20:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

It's the very ideological BS they claim to be fighting - protect the guy who agrees with them, no matter what else they do. I probably agree with Aneris' socio-political views more than anyone else here, but that didn't make me try and defend him after Kitsu posted a well-sourced argument that he harasses others instead of just debating them. It's a shame everyone doesn't feel the same. Lord Aeonian (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

What are you on about? I discussed on talk pages. They made 5 or so sock puppets (which the mods know btw). Just to put things into perspective. And have you ever googled Ryulong? And, for good measure, do you have an idea how the outside world looks at this whole kerfuffle. Kitsu is internet known, too. By contrast, I'm merely one sparring partner. ~ Aneris ✻ 21:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

So they do the same things, but Aneris is just laughably bad at it?

I agree that one must go after the idea, especially at first, but sometimes the problem is not the idea. The idea isn't championing itself or ignoring the debunking, even the original champion isn't doing so, but sometimes the champion is the problem (Aneris is a prime example). It's why there are lists of cognitive biases, logical fallacies, and even informal internet laws which address the champion of the idea instead of the idea itself. Also one does realize that some people cannot be argued with...they simply cannot understand what you are saying (example LogicMaster777). You get to the point of realizing how much time out of your life is wasted arguing with idiots and it's frustrating as holy hell.

I think what Cast is doing is like using a grenade as a fly swatter though. Tune it back down, there are more selections on the dial than overdrive. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I think you missed the part about Castaigne2 being very hostile to users besides Aneris, in fact, none of FCP's sources even involves Aneris. And besides, if you would find that justifiable against Aneris, where does the line get drawn? If I disagree with you, we argue, and you don't change your mind, am to assume "the champion is the problem" and start tossing ad hominems at you? Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Sigh, let's go through this the most detailed and painful way possible.

I did not miss that part, which is why it is here instead of the main coop, but it was to address the OP: The difference between Castaigne and Aneris is that the former bullies people but the latter merely edit-wars, and often with people who are edit-warrers themselves (looking at you, Kitsu).
Aneris is a great example where the idea is less of a problem then the champion because he keeps making the same argument no matter how many times you debunk him. As stated in "Aneris is a prime example" Not the only example or target, just an easy an one I saw today.
It's not a series of check marks down a list. I see an ad hominiem like this: An ad hominiem is that Gene Ray is wrong because he's smelly. It's not an ad hominiem to call him crazy when everything about his theory is wrong, provably, and he still not only believes but goes off on wild word salads that are at best nonsensical. Which provides the solid evidence that he's nuttier than squirrel poop. I hope to crap someone would point it out that way instead of thinking I'm nutz and ignoring me, because insanity can seem incredibly rational to someone in it. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 21:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, you're wrong. The sources disagree. FGM outside of Africa., FGM in Indonesia (NYT), another one Indonesia (human rights NGO), including role of Islam (Indonesia is the most populous Muslim-majority country). And another one. Here's Amnesti International's report. Even more sources. You find local Fatwas against it and more for it, it's also part of all four Sunni schools of jurisprudence. ~ Aneris ✻ 22:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Here is a stellar example of exactly what I am talking about. No one has said a word about this, the entire discussion it about something completely different, but Aneris barges in to make it relevant because...well, I have quit trying to decipher why Aneris does what he does. It looks completely delusional. The subject is important but it's as relevant here as it would be in the middle of an HR meeting at Bank of America. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 22:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Alright, you've made a good point. The New Atheists take the same view in their criticism of religion. But I would say FCP agrees with you already about Aneris - that's why, as you acknowledged, you didn't address the main coop. That still leaves the extensive detailing of Castaigne2's acerbic attitude towards people who are willing to change their minds in light of facts, which is the problem in the first place. Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Kind of why I ended it: I think what Cast is doing is like using a grenade as a fly swatter though. Tune it back down, there are more selections on the dial than overdrive. His aim is wide an unfocused, instead of directed at problems it's more of a "whom it may concern" type of vitriol, but I haven't gone to every single one and made an evaluation. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 23:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, this was the discussion for the last days I was involved in, where EmeraldCityWanderer asserted this was “debunked”. He's mistaken (again). Otherwise, nobody knows what EmeraldCityWanderer means with his obscure claims. We also briefly discussed Coyne, direct outgrowth of the former discussion, where you can see yourself how coherent his views are (they make no sense whatsoever). ~ Aneris ✻ 22:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Wasn't with me. I don't have the time or desire to track you to every discussion you decide to jump into. Even that expectation is pretty creepy. The better way to have addressed that is to point to the last discussion you had, feel free to call me a fuckwit if it's your desire as it's as hurtful as a random 4 year old doing so, instead of just spam one part of the discussion without context or explanation. Context and explanations are what normal sane people do when they leap into a conversation on a radically different subject :-) -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 23:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Re: "wasn't with me." Was some other EmeraldCityWanderer then. You may want to ask the mods to do something about this impostor.

You make no sense. You wrote above I was “debunked”. I showed how you are mistaken. You then claimed you meant some other discussion, and in fact, we only had to do in the Coyne one (yesterday?), so I assumed you meant that. I also never called anyone a “fuckwit”. I think “bullshitter” is adequate, if I may says so. ~ Aneris ✻ 23:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I bully? Now that's a lie. I've never bullied anyone in my life. --Castaigne2 (talk) 20:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I know the feeling; no matter how many times I asked them to stop, those first graders wouldn't stop hitting themselves. StickySock (talk) 20:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Ha. No, I'm quite serious. I've never bullied anyone ever, on the internet or off. Bullies eventually get their comeuppance for their crimes. --Castaigne2 (talk) 20:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

There is no reasonable cause here[edit]

What the hell. This is ridiculous. When was using talk pages reason to kick someone. Stop it - David Gerard (talk) 20:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

As I've made clear below, I don't think that bit merits any sanctions either. However, Castaigne2 seems to be getting a little (too) trigger happy with the ban hammer. Thus I'm suggesting a time out on his mop powers, but no binning/blocking/banning. ScepticWombat (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Hypocrisy much? Note that all I did was split off an off-topic discussion to a new thread. I never edited anything as such. Castaigne, on the other hand, several edited my comments (both formatting and wording) and even edited the last coop case in my name. That is about as un-wiki assholery as you can get. It's only "using talk pages" if you don't like someone, but it's "harassment" when you do like someone. Hah. Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Then you know where to vote. --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The actually actionable stuff[edit]

...is, as far as I can see, the blocks that Castaigne2 slapped on Carpetsmoker (I think the same could be said of the blocking of TruthTellah). For that I suggest a de-sysop of a set duration, followed by a set probation period. Considering that user talk pages are no longer considered "sacred", Castaigne2's blocks were clearly out of line, not to mention starting out with a whole 9 hours, followed by 3.6 days were obviously excessive, not to mention unmerited. Writing walls of text or being a twit is not(so far) an offense in and of itself, although I agree that Castaigne2 seems to have a need for escalating conflicts and bickering that would test the patience of a saint. So, Castaigne2, tone it down a notch (or ten...) and try to curtail your penchant for talk page drama and focus on actual productive edits. If you can manage not to abuse it, you can even have your mop back... ScepticWombat (talk) 21:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

That's nonsense. Sysops blocking sysops is daily business here.--Kugelschreiber (talk) 21:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Joke and attention grabbing blocks, yes; not serious blocks, and TruthTellah is not a sysop and thus can't unblock himself (unlike Carpetsmoker). ScepticWombat (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

No, Sceptic Wombat, although thanks for trying to be nice about it. We both know that FCP's faction will just simply revert whatever edits I make and allow the trolls to romp all over me, my page, and anyone who supports me. There's no need to make yourself a target for whatever altruistic reasons motivate you to do so. We should hold a vote on FCP's proposal as it is given - probation, desysoping, and perma-banning if I so much as make a noise against that faction about anything. We know how the vote will be stacked - it'll be interesting seeing Paravant to triumphantly come back and vote; I'm sure Mona won't be far behind and I pity those who work on I/P pages (which I do not) - and we know how this is going to end. FCP has demanded it; we should always give people exactly what they ask for. --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Are you serious right now? You went from saying Aneris & friends have a persecution complex to saying "We both know that FCP's faction will just simply revert whatever edits I make and allow the trolls to romp all over me, my page, and anyone who supports me."

Seriously, change "FCP's faction" to "the postmodern leftists at the RW" and you have an exact Aneris quote. Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

And if you replace every time someone says "cis-het-white-male," with "black person," you're a fucking racist. Luckily, he didn't say "postmodern leftists at the RW." Hipocrite (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

No, there's a significant and severe difference between something done for ideology and something done for your friends/buds/companions/whatever you want to call them.

This isn't an ideological thing. This doesn't have to do with politics, or woo, or even what direction RatWiki is supposed to go. It's friend loyalty. Recall the Arab proverb. "I, against my brothers. I and my brothers against my cousins. I and my brothers and my cousins against the world." People will do anything for their friends. It's why you call your friend when you need to get rid of the body. --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

(EC) So, the argument for blocking a newcomer after a handful of edits without even bothering to leave an explanation on his talk page boils down to something like "he had it coming"? And instead of actually considering whether Castaigne2 should be blocking Carpetsmoker, he instead pulls a martyr/conspiracy gambit? Sorry, but that really doesn't strengthen his case. ScepticWombat (talk) 21:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposal 1: De-sysop and put on probation Castaigne2[edit]

Yes[edit]

He doesn't need a permaban, just an attitude correction. Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but you're not yet eligible to vote on user penalties, as per Community Standards Ŵêâŝêîôîď

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Obviously, my vote goes here. I suggest having Castaigne2's mop have a rest for a fortnight, followed by another fortnight's probation, but I'm open for suggestions of anything up to 1+1 month. ScepticWombat (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
брэндэн (talk) 23:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

No[edit]

I'm voting for the temporary ban, as this user's antics need to stop such as bullying and posting mean messages on other user's talk pages, name-calling, trolling, etc. We need to send a message, and it needs to be strong. Not just a simple slap on the wrist. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 21:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
We don't need no education. We don't need no thought control. No dark sarcasm in the classroom. Teachers leave them kids alone. Hey teacher leave them kids alone Hipocrite (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
No, but thanks for offering. MarmotHead (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
--Castaigne2 (talk) 00:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposal 2: De-sysop and ban Castaigne2 for 1 week or until he straightens up / Permaban / vote probably voided by Castaigne's interference[edit]

Note: Pbfreespace3's original proposal which he voted "yes" to below was "De-sysop and ban Castaigne2 for 1 week or until he straightens up". Castaigne2 then "fixed" this to "permaban", and all "no" votes appear to have been cast on that basis. No more vote-fixing please. Thank you. Weaseloid ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes[edit]

I think this is the best option presented here, better than simply de-sysoping and probation. His antics need to stop such as bullying and posting mean messages on other user's talk pages, name-calling, trolling, etc. We need to send a message, and it needs to be strong. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 21:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
In the interests of equitable of voting, I place mine here. Perhaps it will provide more courage to the convictions of others. --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

No[edit]

We don't need no education. We don't need no thought control. No dark sarcasm in the classroom. Teachers leave them kids alone. Hey teacher leave them kids alone Hipocrite (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
He doesn't need a permaban, he isn't a troll. He just needs to stop attacking other users, which is a correctable behavior. Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
A permaban?!? On the basis of what? Not playing nicely enough with the other kids? ScepticWombat (talk) 21:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
On the basis of FCP's complaints and desires. I frankly insist that be the question. Proposal 1 is flat-out ridiculous - there should be no proposal but this proposal. --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Yeah yeah, heard you the first several times already... ScepticWombat (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I feel that "not playing nice enough" is a bit of an understatement. Let me ask you this: How un-nice do you need to behave in order to warrant action? Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't think nice has to do with anything. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Nope. I'd rather he left by himself, sought therapy, or almost anything but hanging out here, but ... still ... not this. MarmotHead (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposal 2: Ban Castaigne2 for 7 days, then place on probation for 14 days[edit]

Yes[edit]

I think this is the best option presented here, better than simply de-sysoping and probation. His antics need to stop such as bullying and posting mean messages on other user's talk pages, name-calling, trolling, etc. We need to send a message, and it needs to be strong. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 21:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Conditional Vote: I will support this if he is de-sysoped as well. Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry but you're not yet eligible to vote on user penalties, as per Community Standards Wèàšèìòìď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I remember Castaigne 1 and I think it is best to just give this guy a break though I doubt anything will change.--Owlman (talk) 23:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Kitsunelaine ^{「SJW Illuminati shill.」} 00:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

No[edit]

Proposal 3: This is a stupid clusterfuck[edit]

Yeah[edit]

Multiple parallel votes on the same issue. Strange all-or-nothing voting combinations. Vote proposals changed retrospectively after votes are already cast on them. Votes getting moved around and deleted. The fuck is going on? Wẽãšẽĩõĩď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Frankly, there should only be one proposal - what FCP wanted in the first place. All the votes should then be merged into that proposal. --Castaigne2 (talk) 00:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree. I will delete my proposal and transfer the votes for my proposal into FCP's original proposal. If those users do not want their votes there, they can remove them. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
You can move your vote, but they might genuinely be voting for that alternative. Perhaps ask them what they want? Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 01:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I will ask them in large text. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
I vote clusterfuck, but not stupid. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 01:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Why aren't you perma-banning? You know you can stack those votes. --Castaigne2 (talk) 01:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
We aren't doing that because we don't want to do that, Castaigne2. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Ah, but it should be about what FCP wants. He's the one calling the shots. (Well, it's Carpetsmoker and Paravant pulling those puppet threads. But never mind that. It's not really important.) --Castaigne2 (talk) 01:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I'm a puppetmaster now, am I. And Paravant? lolwut? Carpetsmoker (talk) 02:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Paravant hasn't been on this wiki since December of last year; how insane are you?--Owlman (talk) 03:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Castaigne2, shut up. You have no evidence, but you keep barfing out these claims that the whole universe is out to get you. Why the fuck are you even here then, if you think you're such a target? --Revolverman (talk) 03:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Psht. No one's out to get me. This is just a standard little power play masterminded between friends. Nothing more than what one does in the office. --Castaigne2 (talk) 03:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I quote FCP himself. (And before anyone asks, no, this is not a result of TruthTellah's edit. I made this case yesterday and talked a bit about it with Paravant.)

Why would FCP, a moderator, discuss current RationalWiki cases with someone who hasn't been here for a year? No good (and rather obvious) explanation comes to mind?

Unless, of course, FCP was lying about discussing this with Paravant. I don't believe FCP lies. Do you? --Castaigne2 (talk) 03:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
TL;DR so yeah. A stupid clusterfuck. Kind of like Atlas Shrugged - I read a bit of it, enough to know it was a stupid clusterfuck. Ace ⁱ⁹ 03:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

To Castaigne2: You don't know other people's thoughts and feelings. You don't. If you think you do, you're confused. You can't glean more than a general intent from frikkin internet posts of text. You say "gee, uh,, well, this isn't about what I want, it's about what FCP wants!!! Ohohohoho!! Yah! Not me! This isn't about me! I know his true intentions, yaaahh! He wants me permabanned! Oh! He's so bad, isn't he?" Come on. It's ridiculous, and we all see through it. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

The motivations of everyone, myself included, are absolutely obvious to anyone of average intelligence. People are not complex. --Castaigne2 (talk) 03:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok then. You're a shit stiring prick who is only here to piss people off because you enjoying being an internet tough guy for whatever fucking patheic reason you have, and you worked yourself into a shoot. --Revolverman (talk) 04:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Which, of course, explains the multitude of edits I've made to articles over the course of...2? 3? however many years it's been. Indeed. Perhaps I should amend that to "people who do their research". --Castaigne2 (talk) 04:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

And that changes anything about your behavior... how? --Revolverman (talk) 04:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

If you find my edits and article additions so reprehensible, feel free to ban me just as we did Landmartian the pedo-raper. --Castaigne2 (talk) 04:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

And it'd be reversed right away. You've gamed the system like a champ, I'll give you that. --Revolverman (talk) 04:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

No[edit]

Whatever[edit]

I think the majority agrees that something should be done. Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
It's possible, but this is going to be clumsy way to try to prove it. Weaseloid ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: De-sysop and put on probation Castaigne2[edit]

IMPORTANT NOTICE: All users who previously voted for a temporary ban, please re-vote in the following proposal for your vote to be counted. You may change your vote, keep it, or abstain if you choose.

Yes[edit]

[Not a vote] I support this option, for the reasons argued above. Lord Aeonian (talk) 04:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but you're not yet eligible to vote on user penalties, as per Community Standards ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Obviously, my vote goes here. I suggest having Castaigne2's mop have a rest for a fortnight, followed by another fortnight's probation, but I'm open for suggestions of anything up to 1+1 month. ScepticWombat (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
брэндэн (talk) 23:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- Kitsunelaine ^{「SJW Illuminati shill.」} 01:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
--JorisEnter (talk) 01:52, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 01:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
No brainer. Carpetsmoker (talk) 01:57, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
And there is one of the big votes I was expecting. Don't act like no one knows your agenda. I know you want to steal the site away from Trent for your own purposes. And I know exactly what your faction's plans are to do it. At least you could be honest and say exactly who from the Kiwi Farms you're getting to stack the votes in the future. :D --Castaigne2 (talk) 02:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Just laughing at you folk, is all ;-) And you have indeed seen through my plan to steal this site. I've been trying to crack Trent'spassword for weeks, but damn, you're too smart for me! He probably changed it now and I have to start all over again! Carpetsmoker (talk) 02:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Should go farther after the shitshow that this coop case went through.--Owlman (talk) 02:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Because he just can't stop shitposting.Keter (talk) 02:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry but you're not yet eligible to vote on user penalties, as per Community Standards Hipocrite (talk) 03:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Throw this paranoid asshole the fuck out please. --Revolverman (talk) 02:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Something must be done. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
He hasn't done anything ban-worthy... yet. K O M F 04:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes. Ayzmo ^Cheers 15:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Castaigne is tiresome, and I have some doubts he is even acting in good faith. He claims to be a "pre-Burkean conservative", but whenever any sort of "progressive"-vs-"conservative" debate happens on wiki, I've always got the impression he favours the progressive side. Maybe that's a mistaken impression of mine, but I suspect the claim to be a "pre-Burkean conservative" is just trying to pull everyone's leg. But if he's going around engaging in arguments without actually having good faith, then it would be better for those arguments if he stayed out of them. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 19:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

No[edit]

We don't need no education. We don't need no thought control. No dark sarcasm in the classroom. Teachers leave them kids alone. Hey teacher leave them kids alone Hipocrite (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
No, but thanks for offering. MarmotHead (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
--Castaigne2 (talk) 00:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
You do realize you have the option of ignoring his abuse, and walking away from any arguments he wants to start. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 03:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
You voted in the wrong section, man. --Castaigne2 (talk) 03:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Smerdis, this has ended up being more than just edit warring; this user has been manipulating this entire coop just to avoid discussion on a temporary desysoping and banning.--Owlman (talk) 04:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Definitely not. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Kugelschreiber (talk) 21:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

C'mon now. Vote what you want to vote. Be honest with yourself. Don't feel ashamed of it. --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I did vote.--Kugelschreiber (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Naw, you want the bannination. C'mon, don't be ashamed of it. It's perfectly OK to want it. --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Sigh. Dear Castaigne2, why don't you give that much abused keyboard of yours a well deserved rest and take a nap, go for a walk, have a nice meal, a snack or a stiff drink? Whatever floats your boat but doesn't involve this silly kindergarten'esque antagonism. ScepticWombat (talk) 21:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

It isn't antagonism. It's getting people to choose a side. One should always encourage others to do that, not to remain neutral. Remember, it is better to be confidently wrong than to be diffidently right. --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

it is better to be confidently wrong than to be diffidently right- Castaigne2 That is fucking retarded. You attempt at being edgy are really, really childish. --Kugelschreiber (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not being edgy; I'm being serious. I'd rather be totally, completely, absolutely wrong rather than be wishy-washy and end up doing the "right" thing.

Here's another maxim to consider. In any contest (be it debate, war, argument, whatever), neutrality only signifies a target to either be acquired or denied to the opponent. Thus, one should never be neutral in order to avoid such an entanglement. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

OW TEH EDGE--Kugelschreiber (talk) 22:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

This sounds nice in game theory world with simple systems, but you might notice that in real conflicts, even the world wars, the major powers didn't do that. That's because there are real consequences you have to take into account. You can go ahead and lecture about how "neutrality only signifies a target to either be acquired or denied to the opponent" and how you can insult people because "the idea is the entire person," but it's a simplistic and incorrect way to look at it. Sure, break the world into empirical absolutes and try to be a rational actor in achieving your goals, but you'll find you still have to adapt to your environment to get things down. And you're theories aren't correct. They don't model the world correctly. I can't use your sociopathic debating stance to get anywhere, nor would a country, even a major power, succeed if it was at war with every neutral on the planet.

Now that I think about it, Kugelschreiber is right. Your philosophy sounds like that of a wannabe teenage nihilist, so proud of how dark and edgy his denial of emotion is. Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that you're attempting to use premises and goals that you think are desirable, without considering whether I share those premises and goals. It's a bad assumption.

Let's look at two basic premises that are part of my core values and beliefs. First, that the ends justify the means, without exception. Second, that Occam's Razor is always in effect - and everything IS equal. Immediately, that changes the parameters of the operating program.

I don't think you'll understand that either, unless you understand the concept of the totalitarian utilitarian and the difference between material objectivity and irrelevant subjectivity. --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I understand your position, you misunderstood mine. Read what I said again - your model fails to achieve goals, regardless of what those goals are. It fails because it tries to ignore very important factors. The rational actor, no matter how reductionist and materialist they may be, must operate in an environment which does not share the same parameters, and therefore will react differently. To accomplish any given goal, the actor must recognize and acknowledge the reactions of other actors. I can't see how you would deny this. Case in point: this coop. You can look over FCP's examples and see nothing out of place, but you obviously failed to get your point across in those conversations, and not only that, but this happened. Is this your goal? If your goal is to be considered divisive (at best) and end up being cooped, then your methods work. I am making a assumption here - I'm assuming your goal isn't to be considered a troll and cooped. I may be wrong in making that assumption. But what I can say with confidence is that if you intend to be productive, these methods don't work. Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I disagree entirely. It achieves my goals quite well. You haven't asked what my goal is. My goal is to speak the facts in accordance to what I see and think. That's it. Goal accomplished. I do not care what others think of me; if I did, I would be constantly changing and kowtowing to meet their expectations of how I should be and act. I am cooped? That is the prerogative of any user here at RatWiki, the ability to coop. I have no say in that. Am I productive? According to my goals of production, yes.

An addition to your maxim, while we're at it. "To accomplish any given goal, the actor must recognize and acknowledge the reactions of other actors, and then engage in the principle of Beat it to fit, paint it to match. in order to remove those reactions as obstacles." --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

That's your goal? It seems like an extremely low-bar to set for how effective your methods are. Hell, it's a terrible method to speak the facts in accordance to what I see and think if you get banned. 69.5.131.1 (talk) 23:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Alright, we've reached a conclusion then. Based on the goals you've described to me, your methods work fine. Just realize that those methods have landed you here, and there are many people voting against you. They are not all "FCP's faction." Now, since you said you don't care what others think of you, you may consider this irrelevant. My only point was that your methods have gotten you cooped, and in my opinion rightfully so. Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:54, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

No case for a ban so I assume that is off the cards. Sysop abuse is on the minor side of the scale; on the other hand Castaigne is fully aware that it was abuse and proceeded anyway. I get the feeling that they might be trolling now, or at least being deliberately provocative. Tielec01 (talk) 03:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Resolving[edit]

Current vote is 11 (73%) for desysop and probation (DAP) to 4 (26%) for no action (NA), out of 15. It would require 2 additional NA votes and no additional DAP votes for NA to achieve the 1/3 minimum threshold, which appears unlikely.

Further, this coop case has become a massive ~~shitfest~~ source of drama, and (from my perspective) underscored Castaigne's bad behavior.

As such:

* dons Mod Hat *

I am suspending the customary 48 hour waiting period and enacting DAP:

Castaigne has been desysopped and put on probation until the coop rules him not probation-worthy.
On his first violation of probation, he shall be vandalbinned for a week. Second, banned for a week. Third, banned without limit, pending improbable appeal.
Violation of probation is the harassment of other users. Merely insulting other users isn't enough (given that's common), but attacking other users using slurs, or spamming users, or getting pissy about their talkpages, or messing with voting sections, or in general stepping outside of standard conversation norms in order to adopt a tough guy persona. Just use that old definition of porn: you know it when you see it.

If the vote drastically changes, I can always roll back the decision. Again, this appears unlikely. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 06:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, but you'll have to slow down one day mate. Tielec01 (talk) 06:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Whelp I am satisfied. Honestly, I wouldn't have cared too much and probably wouldn't have found out about his abusive behavior if he hadn't manipulated the coop case.--Owlman (talk) 06:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Tomo arigato, Mr. Potato. Our long national nightmare is over. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 06:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Ain't that "domo arigato"? </smartass>--Kugelschreiber (talk) 19:52, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

The statistics aren't quite up to date. I said no, and that makes five of us. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

From the OP, "It would require 2 additional NA votes and no additional DAP votes for NA to achieve the 1/3 minimum threshold, which appears unlikely." The pro-Castainge2 side needs one more vote for the minimum threshold. Lord Aeonian (talk) 01:09, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Ban Aneris for comitting a thought crime[edit]

Please have a look at the talk page of the article on female genital mutilation. He literally posted on a dox forum to have trolls come over and push his islamophobic agenda on that article. I say that merits an instant permaban and the erath he walked to be salted. What say ye? 79.194.2.66 (talk) 15:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

FuzzyCatPotato of the Ecumenical Electrons (talk/stalk) 15:57, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually that's kind of sad Aneris would post on other sites to come and drown out his opposition because he's so bereft of intellectual prowess that he can't justify any points he wants to push. Seems like more of a punishment to keep him here pounding away at the keyboard, getting nowhere screaming into the void, till the meaning of his life has been driven into the dusts of time making no impact on the world. Something he is doing to himself. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:03, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Ween detected, but there has been precedents of doing do here, so probably the ween has a point there.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 16:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC) 16:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

What's a ween? 79.194.2.66 (talk) 16:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Wannabe-troll.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 16:52, 21 February 2016 (UTC) 16:52, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

For now, I say yawn and archive.--Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 18:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Cosmikdebris[edit]

User:Cosmikdebris pulled a TK by unilaterally rangeblocking T-Mobile. Community consensus is to never rangeblock. 172.58.168.184 (talk) 03:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

The BoN has the right of it. We do not rangeblock. Pippa (talk) 03:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

When the community voted !two times! before, they said rangeblocking was acceptable both times. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 03:43, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Owlman[edit]

Blocked me for spam when all I did was coop someone legitimately. 172.58.168.249 (talk) 03:22, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Neither of these cases call for a coop - both have been told they are very naughty and we can all move on with our lives. Tielec01 (talk) 03:31, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Not banworthy, sure. Not coopworthy either, especially coming from an IP that's been spamming for a few weeks. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 03:43, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

T-Mobile is a big company, how do you know I'm not someone else? 172.58.168.249 (talk) 03:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Goat knows all; sees all. Read-Write (talk) 04:38, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, the coop is not supposed to be the first tool one resorts to, but only comes into play once other attempts at communication fails. I.e. try not to go straight to the coop. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:57, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Pbfreespace3[edit]

Unfortunately, Pb decided to ask for dox so it may be important to have a discussion on why he shouldn't do this and if any punishment should be served. He has been accused of making legal threats, but I don't see his comments has a direct legal threat or against our rules.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:59, 23 March 2016 (UTC) 04:59, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Circumstances alter cases. I'd say that in this case with this particular idiot Pb was justified. Pippa (talk) 05:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

It was a tongue-in-cheek remark. I was asking the person to reveal their true identity since they were so quick to reveal Mona's but not their own. It was a rhetorical device I decided to use in order to point out the blatant hipocrisy and misbehavior of this person. I don't see why soliciting someone to reveal their own identity would qualify as doxxing, especially since it was in jest (albeit a dark humor jest). Pbfreespace3 (talk) 05:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Well I understand your intention and I will see if it brings any interests. Like I said before this is mostly a nonissue, but every threat against a user should be discussed.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC) 05:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that the link you included does not contain the accusation you were mentioning. Perhaps this was a simple copy error. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 05:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The accusation was made by the troll, but I might as well include it here.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC) 05:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Blatant legal threats. Now the mask is off. I do what I do because I have not so fond memories of being doxxed myself, plus it's a fun diversion from the stress in my life (there's more to me than sitting behind a computer 24/7). You want to talk about dox? Posting some girl I work with's picture and name is not doxxing, creating an entire blog devoted to following someone's every move on the internet (as one of your old time people did to me) is doxxing. And I was never out to hurt Rachel, it was just funny to see your reaction to it. I knew you'd suppress all of that stuff, even though there wasn't any harm in it floating out there if you didn't. That all started because I posted her name in an article being funny, someone thought I was trying to harass her, and it escalated from there. And no I don't have an obsession with her, my heart belongs to someone entirely different. I have no idea who Mona is. I am a sysop here. I have done constructive things for the wiki. I've done more non-constructive things, but I never abuse my sysop account. I could really care less if you take it away because I'm not here as a white hat much at all anymore. I have never been banned formally under any account (been blocked plenty of times though). But if you fuck with me IRL, you will not like the results. I've email David Gerard about this and I expect to see something done about those legal threats because that's a serious violation of policy. DMorris, on the EIP Network ^{1 855 282 2882} 06:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I've duly done something about it, i.e. blocked him for three months - David Gerard (talk) 09:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Well the legal threat is on you possibly harassing a woman and doxing her on this wiki. Also doxing is posting anyone's info that is they wouldn't want posted to the public such as their name, picture, and other personal info. Even if all that info was publicly available and was gained through informed consent you have no right to post their info here since it my encourage harassment; what if I had been some low-life loser who stalked this woman because of the info you posted? Now I didn't always believe in this broad definition of doxing, but after several contemporary instances of it i have broadened my definition. So if you were doxed I can't understand how you would risk someone you know's personal info on a website you hate full of anonymous users even if you were only "having fun" so sorry if all I can manage to cry for you are crocodile tears.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC) 06:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I admit it was an uncool thing to do and I went way overboard, but the isdie here is that Pbfreespace3 also went a little overboard, asking for dox and threatening to take legal action without consensus from the community. I'm not denying that what I did was wrong, I would be very upset if anything bad happened to Rachel because of it, or if she found out because that would upset her and that's not nessecary. DMorris, on the EIP Network ^{1 855 282 2882} 06:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh woe is you; now you want us to forgive you because it would hurt your relationship with your peers after you proceeded to not only dox them, but encourage anonymous users to have a nice wank to their photo. From what I understand you are conservative so what kind of moral decency is that to promote anonymous internet users to partake in sexual pleasure of a close friend of your's. You simply want us to revoke a the very idea of taking legal action against you because it will cause your peers to become aware of what kind of deplorable being you act like online when they aren't looking so you can separate your personal life for that of your online life; you want us to punish one of our peers for the mere suggestion of an act that may disrupt your irl life when you preceded to dox your own peers and threaten their lives when they were innocent of this whole affair. Honestly, how petty can you be that you are willing to dox entrusted info you were given because you held a personal grudge against an internet wiki.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC) 06:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

DMorris2[edit]

Anyone talking about getting the police, courts, ISPs or other external authorities to enforce RW's policies should just stop talking or think of something less stupid to talk about.

I'm taking away User:DMorris2's sysop abilities for obvious vandalism (as acknowledged above) which contradicts the intentions stated on his user page. Discuss if you think any further action is needed (like blocking or vandal binning, not calling the cops or filing a lawsuit please). Wéáśéĺóíď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Turns out his sysopship was already removed two months ago. Щєазєюіδ

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Blocked. He's spent the last week being someone nobody would want here (he's confessed to being the doxxing IP) and could do with time to contemplate the joy of being himself - David Gerard (talk) 09:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Are we done here? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 11:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

yeah, I'd leave it here a few hours so people know what happened - David Gerard (talk) 14:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I was already wondering why an account that had been around here for quite a while confessed to be the troll.--JorisEnter (talk) 14:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Remopping and abuse of power[edit]

A short while ago, User:Weaseloid removed my mop for edit warring. He also threw me into the vandal bin thrice the same day. It is true that I had been told not to engage in edit-wars, but that was actually instigated by him, prolonged by him and at the end of the day his stance lost. It's in the fossil record of Hard green as well as the accompanying talk page and as Weaseloids talk page. The last vandal binning was at least clear abuse of power, since the Hard green page undoing and redoing was by then over and he/she was clearly acting in revenge. The demopping was in hindsight slightly less abuse, but abuse still. The excuse was as flimsy as can be. So, I have two suggestions, and since I have never brought up a case before, I ask forgiveness if the formalities are lacking.. ^{— Unsigned, by: Sorte Slyngel / talk / contribs} 20:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Should Sorte have his mop back?[edit]

Yes[edit]

I think I should. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Largely meaningless. Let's get this latest dramafest over with. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 00:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Give it back, it's not like he is abusing it, right? Pizzameister (talk) 12:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes. I'm not entirely sure it should have been taken away to begin with. Ayzmo ^Cheers 15:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry to pop in unannounced... Edit-warring is not an abuse of one's sysop-tools, as even a BoN is able to engage in it, since the RW allows even users without any user account to create and edit pages.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 16:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC) 16:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Despite the confusion regarding alleged evidence, and since Weaseloid has failed to even adress this coop case (which may or may not be his "obligation" as a moderator), I'm going to move for "innocent until proven guilty". See below. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Is this a joke? Weaseloid was over-ridden on the talk page and Sorte's edit still stands and yet he is being punished? I guess Sorte shouldn't have stood up to a moderator, even though on the actual edit he was determined to be correct. Jesus Christ, I guess we are taking the exploring authoritarianism mission very seriously aren't we. 139.130.16.222 (talk) 01:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Giving him back won't make him any more likely to edit-war. K O M F 22:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
give it back брэндэн (talk) 08:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

No[edit]

How is Sorte handicapped by his lack of mop? They've always been too often handed out IMHO. Pippa (talk) 00:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
So, since a lack of a mop isn't handicapping, why don't you give up yours to set a noble example? It is definitely a handicap not to be able to manage one's own pages for one thing. For another thing, this is a matter of principle. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorte has a point here. We give out mops sooner than we take them away. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorte was subject to a Chicken Coop case in January as a result of which he was given a warning & editing guidelines on the proviso that he could be vandal binned or blocked if he didn't keep to these (which he didn't). Such a warning remains unenforceable if he can simply unblock or unvandalbin himself (as he did). His sysopship should probably have been revoked at the time of the coop case. Wéáśéĺóíď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
True, there was a case, but the terms about edit warring were so wide that it's hard not to get into one eventually. You did started it and you used your powers, the last time when the „war“ was over. None of this means, that you, Weaseloid, can instigate an edit-war, as you did and pursued. If I'm not mistaken edit wars are equally forbidden to you. And in the event — taking about Sea Shepherd now, you were wrong. We need better moderators. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Doesn't contribute without it, won't contribute more with it - David Gerard (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
As one of the ones who remembers a certain cluster fuck around the time Sorte arrived, and who has noted his lack of meaningful contribution since then, no. Alec Sanderson (talk) 21:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Same reasons as many above. There need to be enforceable rules around here. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Ditto. Queex _{chthonic murmurings} 14:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
He broke the rules he was supposed to follow since his last coop. Simple as that. Typhoon (talk) 17:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
It is not obvious to me that Sorte even wants his mop back at all. Weaseloid has acted professionally in this case and provided the basic information that was requested without delay and without having to have it dragged out of him. I question my own vote here as I feel that I am playing into the hands of a self-defeatist, but at the same time, I'm done extending a hand expecting to lend an appreciated firm grip, and instead have Sorte start a palm reading session of no import or relevancy to what we're both trying to do. I vote to conclude this case with this "no" vote. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Just like with Ryu he can still edit w/o it.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC) 22:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Abstain[edit]

Did the little edit war about the use of "illegal" in a sentence warrant the mop removal? Possibly not (but sheesh, what a minor thing to bother edit warring over). Does Sorte need to be remopped? Eh, if someone wants to give him a mop I'm not gonna object, but I'm not seeing an urgent need, to be honest. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 14:37, 29 March 42016 AQD (UTC)
Who really needs a mop. Nobody, as far as can be told. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Due to the commentary provided by Weaseloid and the link to the coop consensus, I cannot vote yes solely on my previously given reasons (which were: the fact that Weaseloid didn't appear to comment at all, and the fact that the alleged evidence seemed unclear). Due to Weasel now commenting, explaining and also adding linked evidence in the manner I requested from Sorte already at the start of this coop case, I'm going to move to a position of abstaining my vote for the time being. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Should Weaseloid be at least reprimanded?[edit]

Yes[edit]

I think he should, if there are any statutes for moderators. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes. Weasaloid parts his hair on the wrong side, so I exercise my ignorant uninformed franchise to vote yes. RobSmith
A reprimand, but no actual sanctions, at least not now.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 16:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC) 16:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
~~Petulant behaviour ill-becoming of a moderator. 139.130.16.222 (talk) 01:45, 31 March 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." Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
I think he should think long and hard about what he did and come back when he has learned his lesson (whatever that may be) or, you know... We could put an old Romani curse on him giving him a soul, that would be fun... Pizzameister (talk) 17:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
I'll vote with rob брэндэн (talk) 08:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

No[edit]

While I don't think you are a particularly bad individual, IIRC you were at the time ignoring warnings and continued to edit war even after being told to cool off for a bit. Weasel did have the authority to put you in time out for a bit. StickySock (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
(ec) Yes, Weasel had that authority, but he took part — actually starting it. He didn't say anything about time to chill. And I see by the appearance of Emerald below, that my predictions about a self-selected jury were right. But thanks, StickySock, for not seeing me as Lucifer himself. No user has the right to start or continue an edit war, and that should go double for moderators. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't seem like the period of reflection and understanding was well used to understand the part your actions played in this. It doesn't seem like you can understand that you can be wrong in any fashion, and instead collect grievances with little merit or evidence. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 22:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm not collecting grievances. This is the only one. I'm not quite idiotic enough to assume infallibility on my part. I'm quite sure I know my part in this — I was there, so to speak. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Unnecessary. There was a prior coop case and bad behavior, and a moderate punishment by a mod. Let's get this latest dramafest over with. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 00:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Weasel is OK. Pippa (talk) 00:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
This is silly Typhoon (talk) 17:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Weaseloid has provided reasoning and linked to evidence that makes his actions seem atleast as plausible as Sorte's actions. Therefore, while I do not vote against mopping Sorte (and could possibly be convinced to vote "yes" on re-mopping) I don't see any reason why Weasel should be punished. If it's not entirely clear Sorte should have his mop back, it's atleast clear that removing it wasn't somehow a clearcut abuse of power. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Reprimanding someone does nothing, not to mention that it isn't needed in this case. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't see any reason he should be.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC) 22:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Beer[edit]

Give Weaseloid a beer for putting up with a querulous dickhead with great forbearance - David Gerard (talk) 15:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Wine[edit]

Give everybody a wine from the country they're from... Pizzameister (talk) 19:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't think I'd trust Swedish wine... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
I've heard they are making some drinkable ones in Gotland, thanks to global warming... Pizzameister (talk) 23:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Actually, that might possibly work. Somehow. But Skåne (southern sweden) would possibly be a more likely place? Bah, too lazy too Google. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Wine too. Or mead, mead works well. (Just started another batch last night with 20% Turbo Yeast from Sweden) - David Gerard (talk) 23:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, I do trust our yeast! Anyways, Dog speed David. You're doing Dog's work! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Vodka[edit]

Let's get all drunk on vodka and forget this coop case.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 20:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC) 20:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
I prefer tea. And stroopwafels.--JorisEnter (talk) 20:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Finally a suggestion I can get behind. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:37, 2 April 42016 AQD (UTC)

Goat[edit]

The failure to actually produce the alleged evidence, rather than just sort of wave in its general direction, makes it impossible for me to take a stance on these claims. And any suggestion that I "do the digging myself" based on vague pointers (or really - everything save for me getting the alleged evidence served with full context given) will be understood by me as the accuser implying a trivial nature to his own claim. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

If this is going to be discussed, I'd like to know why Weaseloid kept undoing Sorte without providing any summary for doing so in the fossil log here? Unless there were accompanying talk page, block log or other communications... Abuse of power is a serious accusation. Also Sorte, I'd appreciate if you didn't make us search for your alleged sources yourself. Please include them, if and when you have them, or your coop case will look a lot less serious. Thx. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The relevant links are there. Thanks for at least having a clear head. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Wow, you certainly don't appear to be going the extra mile to make your case. Oh well. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, if the champion of the accusation doesn't believe it's worth the time to even present the evidence then it doesn't seem worth any time to consider the accusation. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 13:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps sadly, that will remain the case for as long as neutral bystanders are expected by the accuser to do all the actual digging required to even review the claims themselves. Now, I wouldn't put my potential benefactors at work the first thing I did, assuming of course I actually had a strong basis for making the accusations in the first place. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

It should be expected of anyone with a central nervous system that if they wish others to believe them that they need to provide evidence. This is like a prosecutor demanding the jury investigate and provide the basis for their case. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to be a tad less harsh and just underscore that there wasn't a complete absence of alleged evidence - the fact that bothered me the most had to do with the expectation on others to invest work to help prove the accuser's own point for him. It's a bit like a salesman who tells you to "just look it up" when you ask about the virtues of the product. Fine, but you can't seriously expect to land a sale. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

(EC)Interesting. Maybe it is because of the sexual assault fallout and talk where I work, but I'm seeing it very differently. You're saying if the "victim" isn't willing to put forth the effort to provide the evidence than it isn't worth considering. That's (for me) like saying if the rape survivor didn't go to get a rape kit and make a report in a timely manner than there is no point in holding a trial. My thought on it. I can see it both ways, but I bristle when someone says that there's no point investigating if the evidence isn't directly provided. Ayzmo ^Cheers 15:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I understand the emotional trauma and difficulty in this circumstance as well as I can try, but the justification of these circumstances to bristle about the request for evidence (or the desire to provide it, or help in their own claim) doesn't seem extremely well thought out. There's a significant difference between reliving the trauma (including the humiliation, frustration, stigma, and more) while pursuing a sexual assault case in comparison to being too lazy to substantiate the claims he made on an online wiki. Putting them in the same location seems counterproductive to both discussions. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't mean to try and make an equivalence. I just find it interesting that people would find it not worth the effort to vote if the evidence isn't directly given to them. As I said, my place of employment is currently reeling with the aftershocks of multiple mishandled sexual assault cases and people are going back and forth victim bashing, so my thought processes are somewhat centered on that. It just seems to me that I'm seeing some of the same type arguments here. Ayzmo ^Cheers 17:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

What I hear is that people at your work seem like they victim bashing to demand evidence, and in this situation I am demanding evidence, so it sure as heck seems like making an equivalence with people who discount rape victims that is fairly disconcerting. This seems to me to have little to do with the coop and more to do with frustration at people at work that hold superficial similarities to my position. Otherwise I don't see much more of a point in this rabbit hole unless you wish to tell me what you expect the results of this divergence to be. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I beg pardon for being, perhaps naive, but I honestly thought that the links given were enough. In any case I didn't expect that many potential benefactors, since I'm rather well aware of my standing here. Infinitesimal. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Just a quick question. What does infinitesimal mean? Thanks in advance Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Infinitesimal means infinitely small. Perhaps surprisingly, I'm not a native speaker of English, so when I first encountered the term a couple years back, I didn't know what it meant either. To be honest, it seems pretty redundant a term; it's hardly more efficient than just saying "infinitely small". 141.134.75.236 (talk) 13:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I mean, if that's your opinion... If you initially present yourself as lacking allies, I can't argue with that. That's basically you expressing a choice. But realise that you made the choice to frame yourself in that light. I will point out generally that doing so serves the single purpose of pushing away possible benefactors, as you literally force them into a position of having to run after you and compliment you to get you back. The fact that you would dismiss yourself like that feels uneccessary and unstrategical to me. For shame. A waste, regardless if anyone turns up on your side or not. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@The Reverend: Infinitesimal: Look it up. If you had mathematics in your gymnasium, you should know. The word just reflects my perceived standing here. I don't count on having friends and I probably do not, but a couple have shown themselves to think it through, rather to my surprise. In politics, this would be called „saying it is what it is“. And I now know what theoretical philosophy means. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

For those not in the know, "gymnasium" (coming of all things from the Greek word for "nude") is a type of school rather than a place for exercise in some places... Pizzameister (talk) 23:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Do they do handball there? ωεαşεζøίɗ

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, sometimes in sports class.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 00:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC) 00:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Wasn't there an article recently, that they only do it there and in no other type of school? Pizzameister (talk) 12:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorte is bilingual like me and was referencing the Swedish (and possibly Scandinavian) word for "high school", which is "gymnasium". And we don't exclusively play hand ball in high school (?), no. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Sorte ...And now you're lecturing me on the meanings of everyday terms, to then go off topic, talking about theoretical philosophy. I have to say that you can't be more clear in wanting to persist as a passive reciever of a verdict, rather than petition people in a normal way as to why they ought to vote in your favor. And that, to me, means that you don't even ask for your mop back in earnest. If you're going to make this constant point out of not even taking baby steps to campaign for your side of the story, then don't insult me as you do. Please. I'm not trying to be rude here, I'm just stunned that you would kick up this amount of discussion from the community while maintaining a sort of melancholic passive-defeatist disposition when practically being begged by people to help them vote in your favor. And it's one thing to not want to "beg" people, which I completely understand, but to piss away their dedication by constantly sidestepping or ignoring their specific calls for you to do some minor token steps to win their vote just saddens and confuses me. If you plan on discussing past the point and lecturing me further, there's no need for you to reply to me any more in this coop. Not taking me up on any suggested "extra steps", even which I've instructed could theoretically have earned you my vote, is one thing. But not doing that plus making me feel dumb for even having shown up to see if you wanted to take your own case in the right direction is just socially inept and rude. Whatever you do, don't look back on this case as you having given it an honest college try. You never gave it that. And - if you care at all - you've now made me feel stupid for attempting to extend you "legal aid", or even my vote. If that was unintentional, wake up and act on this information. If it was intentional, then I've got nothing more to say to you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

No, Reverend, I'm not lecturing. I assume you know the meaning of the words. But you have been wavering all over the place about technicalities. You haven't had anything to say to me at all, since I told you you had my vote for moderator. In my naivety I wasn't aware of the political machinations of getting a thing put up for vote. You may have mastered that more quickly than I did, I'll give you that. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 23:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Literally instructing me to look up a word, saltily commenting that if they taught mathematics in my high school (Dude...), I should already know this. That's lecturing me, and like a real dick to boot. And now you don't even own up to having done so just one post previous? Never mind the fact that I know that word perfectly well, as if the situation somehow involved me not understanding words you've used...? And to then claim that "I've been wavering all over about technicalities" - you mean, technicalities like requesting the simple and warranted presentation of actual evidence in a competent and devoted manner? Say, like Weasel did without question? Regarding my failure to reply to you on my talk page, that's a result of me having rather severe ADHD. I was recently diagnosed, and I've been planning to write about it on my user page, but haven't gotten around to that either, cause ADHD. This is the first I mention of this on the site, for the record. I can understand you're upset that the replies never came, and I am actually too. But it's not because of any spite towards you, and I'd apologize in a second if it weren't because I can't apologize for my handicap when I wasn't the one initiating the contact. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Literally instructing me to look up a word, saltily commenting that if they taught mathematics in my high school (Dude...), I should already know this. That's lecturing me, and like a real dick to boot. And now you don't even own up to having done so just one post previous? - Damn near exactly what he did to make me think he is an unpleasant person. The example is still on my talk page. He never seems to lear from the experience after doing it to other posters as well. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 13:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Just a question about how long a case takes[edit]

This is now two days old. When could one expect a counting of votes to get the case closed? Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Considering the surge of activity just today, I don't think it's time to close this case just yet. I'm the boss of nobody, but I'd prolly give it atleast another day. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Regarding BoN[edit]

139.130.16.222 has been throwing his weight into this discussion. My question is, do BoN users really have any say whatsoever in coop cases? Do their votes really count? And is it proper to clear out the BoN comments from the coop? (In case we're voting on this - I vote "no", "no" and "yes"). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Better ask 141.134.75.236; then maybe take 5 minutes to think about the implications of your supremely well considered opinion. 139.130.16.222 (talk) 02:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll quote you on me having a supremely well considered opinion. Thank you, #1 Handsome Boy. Now, shoo! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Weaseloid seems to think so. Since he's a moderator and he made this decision in a previous coop case that was marred by the same kind of BoN vote-fuckery that we're seeing here, the lawyer in me says that's a set precedent. That's why I was so bold in striking the edit out. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree, and I'm not alone on this. In fact, I'm under the impression that you agree as well, Pb. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Well yeah, seeing as I'm the one who struck the fuckin edit. I'd add the caveat that BoN users such as the one who's a mod right now (gee, I can't remember his/her/ze's name), who have over 75 edits and are in good standing, should be able to vote. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

You mean the BoN I referenced in the second post? I don't even... 139.130.16.222 (talk) 02:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

This guy, yeah. You sock you. Good ol Mr. A, is it? Or another user, someone entirely... new? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

It speaks volumes that you have wasted all this effort on determining whether a BoN is allowed to post on a talk page and completely ignored the fact that Sorte's edit was accepted by the community and yet he has still lost his sysop because of it. Apparently at RW it doesn't matter if you are right or wrong if you stand against a moderator you will be punished. Pathetic. 139.130.16.222 (talk) 02:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes, let's chase phantasms - perhaps I'm the ghost of MC or TK; maybe I am Ex-Troll Cheerleader. Luckily RW's best men are on the case. 139.130.16.222 (talk) 02:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

None of this changes the fact that you can't vote. Try again. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Can this be ended?[edit]

Most people don't want Weaseloid reprimanded; this is clear.

The Sorte sysop vote is less clear, but: if either the RBP vote (which changed to abstain), the BON vote (which is illegitimate), or the 141. vote (which says sysopping is fine but unnecessary) is counted in the "pro" column, then Sorte can have their mop back, and everyone else can cease caring. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 13:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Sure, you can go ahead and close this. The current consensus on Sorte's mop is that there is no consensus. Which I interpret to mean that people are free to mop the guy of their own accord, but such an action would not be notably representative of/backed by the mob. Or was there some previous mob decision that needs to be officially overturned first? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 13:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

There was a coop. RationalWiki:Chicken_coop/Archive43#Sorte.2FMona_Dispute. But it was about Sorte and Mona editwarring over Israel-Palestine, not about this. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 13:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

What seems entirely clear is that Weasel should not and will not be reprimanded. The one question that remains then pertains to Sorte's mop. I an currently abstaining for the reasons given above, though I maintain - as always - the spirit of the clueocracy (the better argument wins) and am as such always open to reconsidering my position if someone does the work and produces something more for me to review. I must say I find it a little melodramatic that Sorte claims to not have any benefactors here, while the vote for or against mopping is literally tied. What's more, there's still more people willing to listen and, in theory, be convinced - e.g. myself - and yet, Sorte acts like he's lost already. Makes no apparent sense if you ask me. If he's actually decided to give up prematurely then let his will be done - it's out of my hands at that point anyhow. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorte is being a huge dramatist. More to the point, he's been doing little else for months - David Gerard (talk) 17:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

No, I'm not a dramatist. I had got advice from a moderator that this was the only way to solve anything. I've done little for a couple of months exactly because I was adhering to the strictures imposed on me. I grant you, I haven't written a book's worth of solid material, but there are a few bits in between, I'm not exactly new. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I said that you should bring it here and make your case. As Reverend Black Percy points out, you're not even doing that, you're just spinning out the drama - David Gerard (talk) 15:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive44

Men's Rights EXTREMIST (Resolution: No action)[edit]

Yes[edit]

No[edit]

Goat[edit]

Closure[edit]

Resolution: No action[edit]

Carpetsmoker vs. Kitsunelaine: Teh Epic Battle[edit]

HuskyHarlot[edit]

Yes[edit]

No[edit]

Aneris (Resolution: No action)[edit]

Additional Material[edit]

Yes[edit]

No[edit]

If he starts edit warring again[edit]

Goat[edit]

Alternative - Aneris should receive a one month ban[edit]

Yes[edit]

No[edit]

Goat[edit]

Alternative - Boomerang Binning for Kitsunelaine[edit]

Yes[edit]

No[edit]

Goat[edit]

Ban them both for a month[edit]

Resolution[edit]

Castaigne[edit]

Problem[edit]

Resolution[edit]

Good god[edit]

There is no reasonable cause here[edit]

The actually actionable stuff[edit]

Proposal 1: De-sysop and put on probation Castaigne2[edit]

Yes[edit]

No[edit]

Proposal 2: De-sysop and ban Castaigne2 for 1 week or until he straightens up / Permaban / vote probably voided by Castaigne's interference[edit]

Yes[edit]

No[edit]

Proposal 2: Ban Castaigne2 for 7 days, then place on probation for 14 days[edit]

Yes[edit]

No[edit]

Proposal 3: This is a stupid clusterfuck[edit]

Yeah[edit]

No[edit]

Whatever[edit]

Proposal: De-sysop and put on probation Castaigne2[edit]

Yes[edit]

No[edit]

Goat[edit]

Resolving[edit]

Ban Aneris for comitting a thought crime[edit]

Cosmikdebris[edit]

Owlman[edit]

Pbfreespace3[edit]

DMorris2[edit]

Remopping and abuse of power[edit]

Should Sorte have his mop back?[edit]

Yes[edit]

No[edit]

Abstain[edit]

Should Weaseloid be at least reprimanded?[edit]

Yes[edit]

No[edit]

Beer[edit]

Wine[edit]

Vodka[edit]

Goat[edit]

Discussion[edit]

Just a question about how long a case takes[edit]

Regarding BoN[edit]

Can this be ended?[edit]

Navigation menu

Search