RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive45

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search


Pizzameister was blocked by Pbfreespace3 for reason "he's engaged in trolling and harrassment of Mona on her talk page, as well as edit reversion with no explanation".

We've got to have a coop. (Yay, more unproductive drama.) I've unblocked Pizzameister until voting ends.

It'd be great if people could just link to what Pizzameister did and state why they think it's fine or banworthy. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 16:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Hir contributations are limited at best. However, I see little that is ban worthy. Then again, being a sock myself since I don't like using my real account while on the phone... StickySock (talk) 17:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
I vote against voting on this. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Well it is of my understanding that banning a sock for being a sock isn't something we do here so if that is what is being voted on then this case will set precedent.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC) 17:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that Pizzameister is a sock of somebody who was banned. Ban evasion is illegal.--JorisEnter (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
No he isn't. Avengerofthe BoN is vandal-binned but not banned. WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
As I said before AFAIK we don't ban people for that reason. We only ban on behavior. That was one of the arguements against giving the mods Check User.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC) 17:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)



  1. Seems to be accepted that he is a sock of a banned user. Pippa (talk) 18:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
    Not according to Weaseloid - who maintains that he is a sock of a vandal binned user. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
    Alright he's still evading a binning.Pippa (talk) 19:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
    That is true. It is not the same as ban evasion. Maybe it should be? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
    If a sock of a banned/binned user behaves well enough, I say let it go. Better behavior is ... ummm ... better. That said, I have no conclusion about Pizzameister's current behavior. MarmotHead (talk) 20:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
    Absolutely. That means everything done in this coop is teeming with integrity and seriousness of purpose. And boy, people will really figure they better not behave like total assholes, or they'll...have to pick a new name.---Mona- (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
  2. Avenger got binned. For some reason, everybody decided to be lazy and not bin his obvious sock, too. Not doing anything about this renders the original bin completely useless.--JorisEnter (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
  3. I vote ban for the reasons stated in the prosecution's case. Pizzameister has amply demonstrated he is a sockpuppet of a user who has been ostracized and punished by the community. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
    I'm sorry Pbfreespace3, I know I said at my user talk page I'd head over here and vote, but I just can't. This whole drama is so fucking stupid, and I'm not going to ratify this moronic exercise by participating as if it wasn't. Masturbating is private activity, and that's what y'all are doing.---Mona- (talk) 02:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
  4. I don't really have much skin in this particular game and I don't much care about the content of arguments that may have been had at some point, but evading a ban/bin should not be tolerated, and there seems to be enough evidence to suggest that is what is happening. Hentropy (talk) 03:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
  5. In honor of the eloquent and well-cited case put together by Pb, and due to the clarity of the prior community choice to bin Avenger, I'm going to see these charges as plausible and vote for a continuation of the limitations set upon Avenger et al by the community prior. By this I mean that while I agree that ban should be on behavior, and that behavior hasn't been bannable yet per se, I also think that once a user sock has been identified, whatever limitation the user had put in them prior to socking should be extended to the sock as well. In this case, a binning. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
  6. It is hard to justify having a coop case if someone can return with a new account. My only concern is that not every case can be so clear cut.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 13:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC) 13:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
  7. Note for self: If I ever get punished with a ban or bin, just make a sock and act like nothing happened. It worked so far for Avenger Pizzameister. Typhoon (talk) 15:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
  8. This vote is only because I am friendly with Pbfreespace3 who has three times essentially begged me to vote. I believe I've adequately stated why I regard this whole exercise as utterly pointless.---Mona- (talk) 04:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  9. It may indeed be pointless, and the effective coherence of the mob may be degraded by diligent idiots, but the sockery in this case is too egregiously obvious to go unchallenged. Alec Sanderson (talk) 14:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  10. Leave him in the bin. He's only been identified because apparently he literally doesn't know how to cool it - David Gerard (talk) 16:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
DG to Mona: "One of the greatest friction points in your time on RW is that you seem to expect it to be run much more top-down than it is: that someone is responsible, that the hierarchy is firm, that interactions are policed. You seem to have greatly misperceived how authority here works. We are deeply uninterested in enforcing things without really good reason. If someone isn't obviously a dickhead, then job done pretty much. Also, regulars change account names all the time just 'cos they feel like it. This is frequently infuriating and fucked-up, but it's a different infuriating and fucked-up to the one you seem to assume is right and natural - David Gerard 22:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)"
I'm yet to see any evidence of Pizzameister behaving like a bin-worthy dickhead. Who gives a fuck if he's Avenger's sock? If his behaviour's improved, then job done pretty much. Robledo (talk) 22:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
There's a general truth to those words from DG, no doubt... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Except DG originally said "job done" if the person isn't causing problems, but DG voted to bin Pizza because he apparently was causing some problems I wasn't paying attention to. CorruptUser (talk) 22:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

No Ban[edit]

[Ineligible:] He did nothing ban-worthy and disagreeing with Mona (there was no harassment of hers on her talk page) or Pbfreespace3 is no bannable offense the last time I checked.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 17:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC) 17:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
You should have checked voting requirements on Chicken Coop cases instead. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
No problem, that won't be the last hunt after our resident Emmanuel Goldsteins here.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 22:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC) 22:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
What a great and liberal site this is! Perma-banned guys get to plead for their pals and vote!---Mona- (talk) 23:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Curb your paranoia or jonanism.--Kugelschreiber (talk)
Hey Kugelschreiber. Why do you dislike Mona so much? What caused this? Are you unable to resolve your dispute? You constantly make angry remarks towards Mona. What's the deal? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 14:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
E.g. here she started to be a pain in my ass, not the other way around.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 14:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC) 14:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
She's a pain in the ass? Can you be a little more specific? When? Why? What over? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 15:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
  1. Ban on behavior only. Behavior appears insufficiently banworthy. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 20:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
    Oh, please, please, ban him! Then, we can wait just a bit to see how creative he can be with his third moniker. That's how we do things at this reputable site, where the Chicken Coop is just a drama factory, signifying nothing.---Mona- (talk) 23:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
    I am obviously in favor of being unbanned. Pizzameister (talk) 23:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
    This vote is invalid, as this user has not registered 3 months prior to the conclusion of the vote, as per community standards.
    Assuming this coop is settled before the 27th that is... CorruptUser (talk) 04:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  2. He didn't do anything ban-worthy. KOMF 00:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
  3. If he hasn't done anything banworthy, sock or no, problem fucking solved. What do you think this is, the American Justice System? CorruptUser (talk) 00:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
    Well he was previously binned so he technically did something bin worthy, but I digress.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC) 00:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
  4. I'm still not convinced. Bin, sure, but... ℕoir LeSable (talk) 20:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
    Well that is what the other option says and I would only be for a perma-binning since that is what the original account received.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC) 00:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
    That makes no sense. The reason to ban is so that Avenger would be forced to use his binned account in order to post; it's a means of forbidding him to evade the perma-bin. Two binned accounts doubles his opportunity to post.---Mona- (talk) 04:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
    That would be quite sometime to wait for both accounts in order to post something and we could easily revert and block him since both of those accounts aren't autopatrolled.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC) 05:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  5. Im not convinced that they are the same person, no solid evidence. Bubba41102The place where you can scream at me 01:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  6. This clusterfuck started because of a) Mona's pissing and moaning about a non-issue (Avenger likely returning as Pizzameister, but behaving himself), and b) Pb3PO's burning desire to jizz his rich, creamy justice all over the wiki.
    For the record, I think they're all twats, and that they could improve the site considerably by fucking off elsewhere. Simply disliking their presence here, however, is hardly sufficient reason to bin / ban any of them. Robledo (talk) 23:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
    +1--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 23:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC) 23:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  7. брэндэн (talk) 08:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
  8. I just don't see evidence of harassment/bad behavior. Disagreeing with certain users is not "harassment." Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


  • As always, produce linked evidence with context provided and I'll be all ears for all sides. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, someone should waste their time doing that. You know, for the entertainment value.---Mona- (talk) 00:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Same, need to see it not be told what the evidence might be after the terse analysis that doesn't even seem to be agreed upon. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
  • You do know Johann Wolfgang von Goethe is spelled differently, right? Pizzameister (talk) 23:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Just so you spell it correctly when "you" get "banned" or "binned." Whenever that is. The world is a field of user names, and I'll bet "you" can run through plenty, as often as "you" are "banned" or "binned."---Mona- (talk) 00:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I think the prosecution should get some solid evidence before this descision is made, the prosecution has failed to provide adequate evidence to convince me to their side, but neither has the defense, i belive personally we should hold off this vote until we get some actual evidence besides "they know german", "they know german politics" and "they don't like someone" Bubba41102The place where you can scream at me 13:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
    I'll add more evidence to the laundry list if that will convince you. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 13:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
    I want to know beyond a shadow of a doubt, thats all. Bubba41102The place where you can scream at me 13:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


This, I can support. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


This is even better!!--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 18:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC) 18:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Süper Döner?--JorisEnter (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Döner macht schöner!--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 18:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC) 18:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Cooping is a charade, an exercise in futility[edit]

This is a comedy, this whole thing. Arisboch is perma-banned, except he's not. Avenger is perma-binned, except he's not. Everyone with an IQ above 80 knows that Arisboch/Kugelschreiber is prancing around here, openly, and last I checked, with a mop. He's voting not to ban PizzaMeister, who everyone sentient also knows is Avenger.What a jolly show! A "banned" person fighting to save his "perma-binned" friend.

Why have this coop case? Indeed, why have any coop case? No matter what time and energy any of you put into these things, and wholly regardless of what the community decides, it can have no effect other than compel a change of name. No one cares if a bad faith editor simply creates a new account. As long as the "new" person only winks and nods, and plays (very clumsily) coy about who he is, no argument can result in their being banned.

Community. "Sanction." Is. A. Joke.

Someone needs to contact Ryulong and tell him to come on back, just with a different name. That I spent even two seconds arguing for why he should be disciplined is due to being too slow to figure out that most of you see this as Rational Wiki masturbation. My apologies, Ryu.---Mona- (talk) 23:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Mona, you misunderstand the Coop.
RW doesn't and shouldn't care about whether someone is a "good person" or a "bad person", because neither actually affects what happens onsite. RW does and should care about "good behavior" and "bad behavior", because both do. If Jesus H. Christ signed up an account and posted goatse, he'd get banned, too. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 01:42, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Oh, absolutely FCP! Why, that Arisboch encouraged people doing doxing, and also those who published my family's contact info and organized a campaign to call them and tell them foul things about me, why, the only sanction should be making him change his name to "Kugelschreiber."
Say, if I knew and posted in the Saloon that a mod's name is Alex Martin, and that he's a grad student in philosophy at IU-Bloomington, and told everyone here to call his campus (Dean's phone number helpfully provided) and tell them all the views he's expressed here as User:DingDong, well, I'd never do that, because you might make me re-register as -Nora-. The sheer horror of that prospect would make me think... almost once. But to do anything serious might -- horror! -- suggest this wiki was opining on whether I'm a good or bad person. ---Mona- (talk) 02:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Hey, knock it off! DingDong (talk) 02:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I totally knew someone was gonna do that. ;) ---Mona- (talk) 02:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Well done Mona, you are faster on the uptake than most of the editors here. Since you are feeling philosophical, what do you think will happen when Pizzameister is banned? Or maybe more to the point, how much time do you have to tilt at windmills? Perhaps now you realise why all the editors here with more experience than you don't consider banning an effective solution to problems. Or maybe you have a solution for the struggle that every online community has had since virtually the beginning of the internet? (talk) 11:57, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Well who might you be? Arisboch or Avenger? Would you like to reveal which username you used before you edited using this IP? I think the community would like to know your identity. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 12:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I predate those editors by many, many years. I'm a little embarrassed to be associated with the site so I will decline your polite invitation. (talk) 13:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)–
Embarrassed? Oh come on, you think we're gonna buy that bullshit?! Who are you? If you're uncomfortable with outing your account, why not give us your real human name? Maybe an address? It would be terrible if that information came out some other way. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 13:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Haha, you dumb fuck. Are you threatening me ? Are you threatening me. You're gonna go along way here you sneaky troll you. (talk) 13:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I'm threatening the above user in order to get them to reveal their real account. I, and probably many other users, would like to know who you are barging in on this coop case here. Otherwise, stop wasting our time. Your edits will be reverted and your IPs blocked until you reveal your account name by using it to edit. If your account was banned, well whopee, you've committed a rule violation, so go away. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 13:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Holy shit stop badgering the IPs. FuzzyCatPotato of the Shoddy Vortexs (talk/stalk) 13:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

The Prosecution's Case[edit]

The charge is that Pizzameister is a sockpuppet account of vandal binned user AvengeroftheBoN, and if found guilty, the punishment would be both a vandal bin and a ban ranging from a long time (~30 days) to a permanent ban, as the user is circumventing a decision imposed by a moderator and deceptively evading said ruling.


The user's first edit was a vote in a chicken coop case. What interest would a random IP that creates an account have in a coop case? The user even stated that he had no interest in the coop case to cover for his actual intentions. This would indicate that this user had a previous vested interest in shifting the outcome of the case, as the user's account was created mere minutes before the coop case vote.

The user holds a seemingly inexplicable dislike of Mona, which is shared by AvengeroftheBoN. He did not have interactions with Mona prior to making the linked comment, which raises suspicion as to why he would have a beef with a user he'd never interacted with.

He thinks Mona deserves punishment, as did AvengeroftheBoN, who strongly disliked Mona. After being called out, he claimed he had nothing against Mona, which does not match with his previous hostile remark towards Mona.

He happens to have an interest in the Israeli Palestinian conflict, as evidenced by these multiple edits. AvengeroftheBoN also has a strong interest in the conflict, which was a main source of his feud with Mona.

He also has quite an interest in Germany and related subjects, seeming to know quite a bit about German politics, just like AvengeroftheBoN. AvengeroftheBoN also knows the German language, as stated on his own user page.

AvengeroftheBoN thought an article should be made on PEGIDA, a German political party. Pizzameister has edited that article many times. This shows they both have an interest in the same fringe German political party.

AvengeroftheBoN has participated in coop cases many times, and seems to enjoy it. Pizzameister's first edit was in a coop case, and he has participated in many coop cases.


AvengeroftheBoN was vandal binned by a moderator. There is ample evidence that Pizzameister is a sockpuppet of binned user AvengeroftheBoN, who is continuing to circumvent his bin. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Also note this edit to the Coop, in which an IP reveals himself to be Pizzameister. Meanwhile, this edit at the WP page on RW was made by an editor with almost the exact same IP (the last two numbers are '16' instead of '32').--JorisEnter (talk) 05:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

The response of the accused[edit]

As to me disliking Mona, I plead noli contendere, as there are probably reasons for disliking her as well as reasons for liking her. Judging by her recent behavior, the question whether she dislikes me seems not entirely out of place. Me speaking German? No kidding, look at my username. And yes, like the majority of all people in the West (at the very least) I have a passing interest in the whole Near East thing. It's not the only thing I ever cared about or the only thing I ever will care about (as evidenced by my contributions to a wide range of other topics), but I do have some interest and dare I say knowledge in that area. As could be said of perhaps 150 million of the 200 million people who speak German. And if you follow German media just a little bit, you might have noticed that the whole Pegida/AfD thing has been kind of a big deal recently. But aside from the question as to my true identity or lack thereof, I fail to see any case of behavior worthy of punishment laid out. I don't know, nor do I care what AvengeroftheBoN was accused of and whether (s)he was guilty, but I fail to see the case being made about me. As I understand it, this wiki lacks clear procedures for blocks, as opposed to Other sites I have come in contact with, which usually operate on an "escalating ban" system and - if I am not mistaken - require consensus instead of a majority vote. Of course I don't make policy around here, but aside from an openly acknowledged principle of mob rule, it seems to me to be just chaos, as evidenced by being banned out of the blue for three months and then being freed and rebanned several time within mere minutes. Anyway, I trust that some wisdom can be found in these proceedings, no matter their outcome, and of course I hope that I will in the end be able to remain a trusted contributor and allowed to impart my take on things. Pizzameister (talk) 15:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Devil's Advocate[edit]

Whether or not the prosecution can provide evidence that my client, PizzaMaster, is indeed this "AvengerOfTheBoN", can the prosecution show that PizzaMaster has significantly violated any rules since creating Hez account? If not, then does this case even have merit? CorruptUser (talk) 02:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Your statement is basically irrelevant to this case. The case is about whether the accused user committed the crime of circumventing a vandal bin by engaging in deceitful sockpuppetry. That's the charge. If true, then all of the behavior committed by the accused since the creation of his account is essentially a rule violation. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Pbfreespace3, you don't get it. Almost no one here cares that he's obviously Avenger and evading a binning. Almost. No. One. Cares. See FCP's reply to me above. He's not alone in that view. This whole coop thing is a fucking joke. Every. Time. There is no such thing as a "ban" or "bin." No matter what anyone does. The only sanction is causing a user to have to change their user name. Threaten, dox, post some child porn, do as you will. All you'll "suffer" is having to change your account name.---Mona- (talk) 02:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Mona, I'm on your side here. I think you should vote in this case other than goat. If you think it doesn't matter, then why not vote anyway? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Eh, she's just looking for sympathy from people. CorruptUser (talk) 03:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Sympathy? For mocking inane community "decision-making"? Pbfreespace3, I can't. I won't pretend this is anything but a drama-fest that means jack shit. So what if Avenger gets banned? He'll be back within 48 hours. And given a mop in a week or two. Seriously, why do you care about this "case?" THERE IS NO CASE. It's a charade.---Mona- (talk) 03:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Even if it is a charade, one can still play along. I understand why you are frustrated by all of this. Don't dwell on it. I personally believe good can come out of this, and that's why I'm participating in it. I want Avenger and Arisboch to be stopped from their bad behavior. That's why I'm here. You may not have the will left in you to fight, but you can rest knowing I will do what I can to stop sockpuppetry editing and deceitful behavior as long as it's here. As long as Arisboch and Avenger use IPs or create new accounts, I will fight them and stop them. That goes for Kugelschreiber too. (He's Arisboch) Please don't trouble yourself over this if you think it doesn't matter. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm not troubling myself, nor do I "lack a will to fight." For you I feel sympathy (and some personal admiration) because your intentions are good, and you want to actually enforce standards. (Tho, that you believe you can succeed is hard to understand.) But for almost everyone else I feel contempt. All I care to do in the coop, as things stand, is mock these fools as they prance about behaving as if this means a goddam thing. I've seen people be-clown themselves on the Internet before, but this is truly choice.---Mona- (talk) 03:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
In that case I think we'd all prefer it if you kept the chatter to a minimum. Often the case can be distracted and derailed by adding commentary to every play. I know you think the outcome won't matter, so in that case I'd urge you to refrain from commenting. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 04:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
1+ to that. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Rule change[edit]

Let's be honest with ourselves here, this case is more about our policy on allowing perma-banned/perma-binned users to use socks to come back than it is about on Pizzameister's behaviour. So let's assume, for this discussion, that Pizzameister isn't Avenger; the question is should we allow a user to return if they have committed an offense that got them perma-banned/perma-binned in a coop case? If so, then how can we truly "know" since mods don't have check user? If not, then what is the point of going through a coop case at all? Wouldn't be just as effective to have mods ban a user and then have them instantly return under a new account? Won't any and all community decisions become pointless since any of use can usurp it by changing our IP/username?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC) 05:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Honest? CorruptUser (talk) 05:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Well this case will set a precedent, won't it? Those voting for the ban believe that the current policy is wrong while several of those arguing against changing the policy. So yeah, we should admit that this is more than just the behaviour of this user so I am asking everyone to talk about the policy and not the user.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC) 05:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
No, I mean, the rule change is more of a proxy for the mob's opinion on Avenger and all that headache last year, not the other way around.
As for the end result, as long as we are consistent and understand exactly what the implications of this coop case are, I'm fine with it. Just a pity that a rule change would be over something as stupid as Avenger rather than a real issue. CorruptUser (talk) 06:04, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Permabans or permabins should be upheld and applied to the sockpuppet account if the community has reached a consensus in the coop. When we ban users, we're essentially banning a person from editing, whether that person calls themself Stanley or Mr. Donutruler. If Pizzameister is actually AvengeroftheBoN, he should be binned regardless of what account name he uses. If you don't agree with this policy, then you think permabans and permabins should not apply to anyone ever, as long as they use a different account. If you don't agree that sockpuppets of punished users should be treated the same as the sockmaster, then you don't believe in any kind of law and order at all on this wiki. It would be like letting someone out of prison because they changed their name and got plastic surgery. Ridiculous.

Another thing: can anyone explain why we don't use checkuser here? Is there a moderator or old guard member here who can explain why this policy is in place? Does checkuser has a high false positive rate or something? I personally would support its use in cases like these, as it could provide the decisive evidence we need to resolve this conflict. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 12:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

In answer to the second question there are three responses. First it was a reaction to how it is used \ abused at CP. Second it is not very useful; much like banning IPs (someone better tell the young buck banning me) as people can easily hide their IP. Thirdly it is often abused, did you know that David Gerard had his check user rights removed from him at WP because he abused them to find out personal details of a user? Strange but true, unfortunately. (talk) 13:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I am well aware of Check user abuse, but my point still stands that w/o it is much harder to be certain a sock is among us. Mods will abuse their tools so we just need to know the danger and balance the issue. I know that you can just hide your IP so enforcing coop cases will be hard regardless.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 13:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC) 13:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
"Mods will abuse their tools" Will they? Even assuming they will, how exactly do you 'abuse' CheckUser? If someone feels like excessively comparing accounts' IPs, it's not like that's harmful to any of those accounts, right? (talk) 19:01, 5 April 42016 AQD (UTC)
Well there is a cringe factor to it since any mod can see your IP.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC) 05:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

In the meantime[edit]

I've used my fascist powers to bin Pizzameister as a likely returnee of Avenger who still clearly hasn't fucking learned how not to be a ban/binworthy dickhead. I suggest not unbinning unless/until this shitfight is resolved - David Gerard (talk) 13:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Stop banning IPs[edit]

If it's such a fucking issue just lock the page to autoconfirmed Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 13:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Which won't work either as meister Pizza here is not autoconf - for good reasons.--JorisEnter (talk) 13:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
That said though, some of the IP bans were unnecessary. A user should not be banned unless they have done something wrong or are an obvious sock.--JorisEnter (talk) 13:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
WTF? It was you blocking them. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Nope. Apart from an account that appears to have been created solely for the purpose of shitting on the Coop - much like somebody involved in this particular case, it seems.--JorisEnter (talk) 19:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Acknowledged. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 14:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

A fundamental question[edit]

Bans like this must always rest on ultimately flawed evidence. "[X] does [Y], just like [Z] did!" etc. This evidence is flawed; RW can never truly prove that [X] is certainly [Z], because it's always possible that [X] just happens to have the same interests as [Z]. Proving that [X] is likely [Z] is possible, but it requires a great deal of effort -- just check Pbfreespace's laundry list above.

Because of this, it makes more sense to ban based on a user's behavior instead of their identity.

This largely resolves the proof issue -- it is much easier and much more valid to point to examples of a user harassing others, doxing, spamming, etc., and it is much harder to explain away said examples.

Banning for behavior, not identity also resolves another issue: the purpose of bans on a wiki. RW's goal is ultimately to produce content and inform people. Users are banned because they detract from that goal. But it is not the user themselves that detracts from the goal -- it is their behavior. Hence why "good" people are banned for doing bad things. If Jesus_Christ_SonOfGod joined RW and spammed on the religion articles and posted goatse, he should be banned. Does it matter who he is? Really, RW doesn't and can't know who s/he is, and it doesn't affect RW. And if a user showed up named Jesus_Christ_Superstar, who happened to share the same interests as Jesus_Christ_SonOfGod, but who instead wrote sourced, nuanced articles, do we give a shit whether they're the same person? No.

FuzzyCatPotato of the Obscene Air conditioners (talk/stalk) 16:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

This is true and I agree. However, in cases where it can be proven that the user is in fact the same person, I think that any current penalty (be it ban or binning) be extended to that sock as well. Is there any way for us to implement CheckUser for the moderators on the site, for the record? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Well it was rejected when I proposed it and it has veen rejected several times before that. Users here are too afraid of tge abuse that mods may be able to use so no I doubt anyone would implement it.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC) 17:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree with this statement. If he isnt being toxic or harmful, we should just leave it alone if it cannot be definitively confirmed. Bubba41102The place where you can scream at me 17:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree. We should not ban users based on anything besides behavior. I gather that this is what many other sites do, and their success seems to prove them right. What possible good would witch hunting for possible socks do anyway? If for instance I was banned for being a sock of some one or another, any user who speaks German and takes an interest in the Near East could become the next victim of the same suspicion. And they would be banned not for any behavior, but for sharing certain qualities with someone else. I don't think we should go down that road. And while you may not believe me, I would say the same if I was not involved in this. In fact, I would say the same if someone I dislike or whom I disagree with were in my stead. Pizzameister (talk) 18:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
While I agree with your concerns, but I can't see anyway middle ground here. What is the point of having a community coop when someone can simply return under a new account?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC) 19:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
@Owlman: the purpose of the coop should not be to ban individual members, but to set precedents on what behavior is and is not bannable. So if someone is coop-banned and comes back and repeat-offends, they will be banned again. If someone comes back and doesn't offend, then they've magically reformed and there's no reason to throw them out again. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 19:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Well what if someone doxes someone on this site? Hasn't the individual user become a danger now?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 20:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC) 20:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
@FCP: The purpose of the coop is to deal with individual problems, users & disputes. The text at the top specifically states it's not for setting policy. I thought it was you who added this, but maybe I'm mistaken. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm reasonably new here so I wouldn't presume to vote, but can someone clarify for me the point of the vandal-bin, bans and the coop if it's perfectly acceptable to simply create a new ID to bypass them? If I spend the next 3 days being abusive and vandalous (not a word but it should be) and get binned, then all I need to do is register MyScarfIsBread (or probably something less obvious) and carry on regardless? I get the arguments against it (difficulty of proving socks, checkuser abuse etc), but if circumvention is that simple why bother having a coop / vandal-bin etc at all? Seems like a lot of drama for nowt if there is no sanction that will be enforced beyond 'sign up again'. MyHatIsBread (talk) 23:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
MyHatIsBread, you've got it exactly down. You ask: "If I spend the next 3 days being abusive and vandalous (not a word but it should be) and get binned, then all I need to do is register MyScarfIsBread (or probably something less obvious) and carry on regardless?" The answer is: "Yes." So there is no incentive from this wiki given for you to refrain from doxing, posting child porn, or harassing the ever-loving shit out whomever you decide to harass. So you get banned? Start a new account, and carry on. Do the same shit, and there will be all sorts of drama-fests (also known as coop cases, but also flame/edit wars around the site) over the same guy, but new account. Wash, rinse repeat. Yes, you understand exactly how things "work" here.---Mona- (talk) 05:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Oh good, I do so like to fit in! I've not come across a wiki-type site where the answer to the question "Is a user allowed to bypass a permaban" is "yes" before. It's not like other places don't have issues with sockpuppetry but it seems to generate an unusual amount drama here. MyHatIsBread (talk) 09:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

A Matter of Principle[edit]

This isn't about whether a user has committed bad behavior (which, by the way, he has). This is about Principle. This is about upholding what few rules we have here. If we impose sanctions on a user, we're placing limitations on a person's rights to edit here. No matter what they call themselves, they are still subject to that sanction. If a binned user creates another account, that account should be subject to the same terms and restrictions as the original. If Pizzameister is indeed AvengeroftheBoN, he should be vandal binned. If you disagree with this statement then you don't believe in any kind of law and order at all on RationalWiki. This isn't about whether the account Pizzameister has acted badly: if you create a sockpuppet account to avoid the law, that's bad behavior. That's justification enough for a bin. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 20:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Put your wikicop e-penis away, son. You're embarrassing yourself waving it around like this. Robledo (talk) 22:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
^This. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
+1 --Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 23:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC) 23:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
+1 Bubba41102The place where you can scream at me 01:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
+1, like holy shit. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 17:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
My argument for not banning him is that we cannot definitivley prove that he is avenger, we can only speculate, how do we know this isnt some crazy coincidence, there is no solid evidence that they are the same person. Bubba41102The place where you can scream at me 01:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
"how do we know this isnt some crazy coincidence," We are sentient beings who have lived in the world. But it doesn't matter. Pbfreespace3 cogently set forth the actual issue, and four nasty people mocked him for it, including one who is "perma-banned." (Christ on a crutch, you people are a bunch of freaks; you are letting a perma-banned person participate here in the coop, to vote, and to denigrate a good editor.) You people are not just a bunch of clowns, you are vicious clowns.---Mona- (talk) 05:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Seriously? "I'm Threatening the above user to try to get them to reveal their real account. ... Your edits will be reverted and your IPs blocked until you reveal your account name by using it to edit." is your idea of a good editor & not a pompous churl abusing his (completely non-existent) authority (who then has the nerve to lecture others about "bad behaviour" and "upholding what few rules we have here")? WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Weasoloid, I don't know anything about that, and do not intend to follow the link to learn. What I do know is that what Pbfreespace3 wrote above is sound and right. If he tried to get some sock to reveal their actual account, well, a fuck I do not give. The behavior regularly tolerated around here makes a joke of all this high dudgeon directed at Pbfreespace3.---Mona- (talk) 01:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, sure, call people freaks and whatnot, that'll sure make them understand your side and not simply to tell you to fuck yourself with a cactus.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 13:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC) 13:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Arisboch, no fucks do I give. None at all. That you openly & notoriously prance around here is a large part of the reason I have only contempt to vent at this juncture. Trying to "make people understand my side" was a project I prosecuted for a very long time. Now, it really is no fucks do I give.---Mona- (talk) 01:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

You do realize the remark made toward the IP in order to get it to stop messing up the coop actually worked, right? He stopped posting garbage here all because I dealt with him the effective way. Why is that a bad thing? Chances are that person IS a banned user, as they stopped posting after I threatened to reveal their actual account. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 18:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Really? You got any proof who that use is? Any kinda real proof beyond elaborate or less elaborate guesswork is impossible to get here anyway, since there is no CheckUser here.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 19:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC) 19:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Pillockscriber, keep stirring the shit, and you will be the next one cooped. SmartFeller (talk) 19:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
So questioning Freespace' absence of clear evidence is "stirring the shit", eh?--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 19:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC) 19:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Your denial is implausible, for all to see. SmartFeller (talk) 19:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Denial? Of what? That Freespace has no clear proof for socks? He hasn't, there is no CheckUser here, people don't want it, CheckUser is no 100% tool against socks, anyway and Freespace is no mod, either.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 20:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC) 20:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Do not put your хуй в чай. SmartFeller (talk) 20:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Шоб у тебя хуи в лбу вырос.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 22:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC) 22:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Wow, pb you are saying it is okay to threaten people "because it works", using that logic i could say the holocaust was justified "because it worked" you are confusing effectiveness with morality. Just because something in effective does not mean it is right. Bubba41102The place where you can scream at me 19:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Bubba, take heed of Mona's comment regarding sentient beings who have lived in the world. Also, the holocaust was ultimately ineffective. SmartFeller (talk) 19:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
This is dumb. He was making a point about the noxious behavior in the name of success. Don't start a half-factual debate about the efficacy of the holocaust. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
His "point" is a weak one, and his Godwin example poorly chosen. SmartFeller (talk) 19:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

To Bubba: First, Godwin's Law so you lose. I threatened some random IP no one's ever heard of to get them to stop adding pointless pontification to the coop. But really, this is about whether we're gonna let BoNs screw around in the coop. It's that simple. Are we going to allow IP addresses to post inflammatory comments to try to derail the coop case and prevent a just vote, or are we not going to do that? It's not a hard question. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 20:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

(EC) The IP editor you threatened & blocked didn't "mess up the coop" in any way. They expressed opinions, just like everyone else on this page. They didn't attempt to vote, vandalise anything or mess with anyone's comments or votes. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Regardless, should we let random IPs with utterly no stake in the case participate in discussions in the coop? I'd like your moderator opinion on this matter. I personally believe that only Rationalwiki registered users should be able to participate, as the are the only ones with a real stake in the discussion. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 20:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

We have restrictions on who can vote. Why does it bother you so much if others share their opinions? €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

It bothers me because banned/other users can go to other forums on the internet and encourage their friends to come here and back them in the coop by posting comments. We aren't asking for the opinions of the whole internet on this coop. We're asking for the opinion of editors, as stated in the introduction. Since these IPs have not contributed anything to this wiki prior to making their comments, they shouldn't be allowed to discuss these issues. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 21:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually you have incited cohens law pb. Bubba41102The place where you can scream at me 22:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Do you even have any proof, or a hint of a proof, that this is happening?
For that matter, why the fuck would you threaten to doxx someone? ℕoir LeSable (talk) 18:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't like it when Arisboch/Avenger's friends/IP socks come here and roleplay to back up his side. I also never directly threatened a doxx. It would be difficult to find someone's name and address through an IP address alone. I don't have proof that Avenger/Pizzameister solicited reinforcements from a forum such as Kiwifarms, but Arisboch has publicly solicited help in RationalWiki arguments from his friends there, and solicited a doxx WHICH WORKED. That demonstrates that this small group of RW users seem to have no problem getting their friends involved in RW arguments. There is a precedent, which increases the likelihood of solicitation. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 18:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

You're woefully off the mark not only on who that IP editor you & Joris kept blocking is but on what they were actually saying. As for the difference between directly threatening & "wouldn't it terrible if", well, there isn't one. Credible or not, everyone recognised it as a threat & you acknowledged it as one. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Something I still don't understand[edit]

So I am not quite sure who the user I am supposedly a zombie second coming of is or was and I also do not care. However, apparently this person must have done something horrible in order for the punishment to be eternal and without appeal. Now the prosecution's case seems to be entirely out to prove or argue that I am indeed that person, but even the prosecution does not accuse me of any actual wrongdoing. So if I may be so blunt: Will the prosecution please come forth with an actual heinous act committed without reasonable doubt by me? We have a saying in Austria which I think might apply here "Scheißen oder Runter vom Topf!" Pizzameister (talk) 22:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

You were harassing other users and editing certain pages in order to provoke certain editors you didn't like. That's trolling. The former account was cooped here before. It was several months ago. You can check around in the edit history if you aren't already aware.
Look, I know what you're trying to do. You're trying to shift the argument from what it is actually about (sockpuppetry and deceit) to a referendum on whether the user account Pizzameister has committed some heinous act. That's very deceitful in and of itself. We're not holding a vote on whether Pizzameister has made some kind of terrible remark or vandalized or something. That's not what this is about. This is about one user who was punished using a false name to continue editing unnoticed. In my humble opinion, that's a heinous thing by itself. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Also, could you be more obvious, Avenger? "Here in Austria". We know it's you. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Pizzadude, in all well-meaning sincerity, if you're really not Avenger, you should really try to find him because then he's bound to be your long lost twin! You're so much alike it's creepy, man. ;) (talk) 17:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Good post!--JorisEnter (talk) 17:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I like how he doesn't even respond to my claim. The most he can do is post in other sections and say "I don't know who this supposed user is and what they did". He never directly responds to my claims of him being the man in Dresden. The reason why? He is a man in Dresden who dislikes Mona, dislikes Palestinians, and likes to edit RationalWiki on a daily basis. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


It's been more than 2 days since this Coop started. So far the tally is 10 in favor of binning Pizzameister as a sock of a binned user, and 5 against (not including 2 people ineligible to vote). This is a pretty clear majority. So shall we bin Pizza? CorruptUser (talk) 22:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

He has already been binned, that happened yesterday. Bubba41102The place where you can scream at me 22:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, I have been binned without even so much as a vote or consensus or anything. And simply not counting dissenting votes due to some technicality makes even more of a mockery of this process than has already happened. I still fail to see the prosecution making any actual case of any actual wrongdoing. But apparently none of this is needed if you just get enough people riled up enough... Pizzameister (talk) 22:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

"not counting dissenting votes due to some technicality makes even more of a mockery of this process" Excuse me, what? That's the whole point of the process. Not following the rules would be making a mockery of the process.

The wrongdoing you've been accused of is sockpuppetry to avoid community sanctions. Has this not been made clear? Did you think you'd be able to return under a different name, not post garbage that got you binned before, and avoid being noticed and recognized? Well you were wrong. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Wait a minute.[edit]

Has Pizzameister actualy done anything against the rules, and has he even done anything vandalous while he has been here, i do not think he has, so what is the point in putting him in the vandal bin, the vandal bin is to stop vandalism, not as a time out corner. I think the worst we should do is give him a 9 hour block, if we can prove he is avenger and leave it at that, the vandal bin is meant to bin vandals, not to be used as a time out corner. (note i still dont think that pizza is avenger, and that everyone needs to chill.) Bubba41102The place where you can scream at me 22:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Evading a binning/banning is technically a rule violation if it can be proven. Question is whether we should care. Results seem to be that we do. CorruptUser (talk) 23:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes but PB and his gang have proved jack stercore, so any argument for his binning is invalid until they do. Bubba41102The place where you can scream at me 23:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Well if that is what the rest of the community believes then there won't be a problem. Also, since Pizzameister is probably going to be binned he will be able to appeal his binning the wiki even if he is Avenger; Goonie was reconsidering Avenger's binning right before shit hit the fan. Since he is limited to 1 edit per half hour he can also email relevant users in order to complain so if we did fuck up he isn't doomed.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC) 01:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Almost 9000 words to answer the question "Do we block/ban socks of blocked/banned users". Has this never come up before? MyHatIsBread (talk) 10:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but you reckon without fuckwits who insist the thing that looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and is covered in feathers can't be philosophically proven not to be a platypus - David Gerard (talk) 10:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 :-) MyHatIsBread (talk) 11:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
And what's more, the 9000+ words here aren't even really to answer that question, since (and I quote) "If the issue is not conflict resolution, but concerns RationalWiki policies, suggested changes to how things work around here, or similar matters of principle, please post on the Community Standards talk page instead." Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

David, that's ridiculous. I don't think that people aren't pissed about the abstract epistemic flaws. They're pissed that someone is being considered for being banned without doing anything wrong. Here's a summary of the evidence against Pizzameister:

  • Pizzameister speaks German, cares about German politics, and cares about Israel/Palestine. There's only a few hundred million people who could fit that description. (Especially true, given that they've also been interested in Bernie Sanders and American politics.) Definitely the same as Avenger/boch, definitely banworthy.
  • Here's how terribly hostile Pizzameister is to Mona: "Saying something like Mona just did is really not helping her case." Wow, totes banworthy.

And that's it. So why risk banning what appears to be a productive user, just because there's a chance (and not a particularly good one) that they might be a banned user? If he hasn't done anything banworthy, sock or no, problem fucking solved. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 12:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I will re-iterate that I am always open to being convinced and re-convinced by good argument in a coop case. I'll just leave it at that. And while I'm not changing my vote as far as this comment goes (a vote which I also give rather specific reasons for above and which isn't just a blantant "yes"), I think what you and Weasel are saying also seems to make sense. I'm a little torn, frankly. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Fuzzy: you're either deliberately ignoring the many suspicious coincidences or you're just not paying attention. The two accounts edit from the same IP cluster in the same city and one started editing the same time as the other stopped. What with that & having the same interests, attitudes, opinions, behaviour & vocabulary, & Pizzameister making various contradictory statements about knowing/not knowing who Avenger, Arisboch & Mona are or about incidents from before he registered, the chances of this all being a mistaken identity seem pretty slim. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
I think you are forgetting that half a million people live in dresden. Bubba41102The place where you can scream at me 13:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
A difference in the last two digits limits this to a bit less than half a million IP addresses - one hundred IPs, to be exact. In an IP range of one hundred people, there are two who have the exact same interests, enemies and behaviour - not to mention that one manages to register just as some shit the other one would certainly find interesting is going on? I call bullshit here.--JorisEnter (talk) 13:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
And how do you even know this wikipedia editor was avenger we cant, we dont have check user, so if we dont have check user, we can never be sure. Bubba41102The place where you can scream at me 13:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
@Joris Wouldn't that be one in 255 IP adresses, if it's the last segment of the IP block that differed? Just saying. Still, the point regarding the IP you make is very good. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
This is what I mean by "you can't philosophically prove", and suggest you stop assuming we're all as dense as you're acting - David Gerard (talk) 13:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
If by "philosophically prove" you mean "anything more than wild conjecture and witch hunting" and disregarding this witch hunt or wild conjecture is being dense, that is.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 14:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC) 14:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Fuzzy, read the above. You're bending over backwards to ignore the evidence here - David Gerard (talk) 13:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
This "evidence" exists only in your fantasy.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 17:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC) 17:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

The "IP" evidence is absolute shit. The IP belongs to a German hosting company which owns - -- if people are randomly assigned an IP, then there's a range of over 100,000 people who fall within it. If the prosecution wishes to argue that AvengeroftheBoN is willing and able to hop IPs -- but only within a range of 255 IPs -- then they are free to do so.FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 22:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I move to close[edit]

The dispute seems to be unresolvable and should be put off until such time as problematic behavior that disrupts the wiki arises. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I advised against dealing with this in the coop & sure enough it's been the shitshow clusterfuck I expected. But now that we're here at this point, why "close as inconclusive" (leaving the door open for tedious wikilawyering by Pizzameister & his compadres) when there has been a vote with a majority in favour of him being vandal binned? & Why vote again on the same damn thing? You're drawing it out rather than closing it. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
^Precisely this. (talk) 20:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Oh fine. I agree it's been a giant clusterfuck, I just didn't think it was worth any more attention than it's already gotten. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Support closing as inconclusive[edit]

  1. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
  2. I wasn't convinced the first time for an all-out ban, and now reading through the reactions of PBF et al, I'm starting to think there's something more going on. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
  3. --Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
  4. In dubio pro reo.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 20:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC) 20:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
    Still ineligible, as per RW:CS.--JorisEnter (talk) 20:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
    That's not a policy vote.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 20:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC) 20:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
    "In order to vote in [...] penalty votes, which seek to penalize (or change existing penalties for) a user, you must have at least 75 total edits and a registration date at least three months prior to the conclusion of the vote". This vote is directly concerned with whether a user should be penalized or not. Your registration date was less than three months prior to this vote, so unless you're going to filibuster this and make this Coop last until 25 April, you are ineligible to vote.--JorisEnter (talk) 21:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
    Where are the people who whine about "wikilawyering" now? ;P Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 22:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
    You called for me?--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 22:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC) 22:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
  5. I see no reason for punishment. Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
    What about him being a sock of a binned user?--JorisEnter (talk) 22:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
  6. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 22:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
  7. Still to see a single shred of evidence presented that Pizzameister / Avenger has been disruptive or abusive since his return. The fact that his mere presence here causes Mona paroxysms of rage is a) irrelevant and b) pretty fucking funny. It took a complete tool like Pbfreelancewikicop to actually take her complaint seriously, and no doubt he had a lovely great big e-boner as he banhammered the filthy law-breaking wretch into oblivion.
In short, fuck policy / sanctions being driven by some of the most obnoxious and drama-loving turds in this particular pool. Indeed, if failure to bin / ban Pizzameister causes them to skulk off elsewhere in disgust, then happy days, the wiki's two whole angry idiots lighter. What's not to like? Robledo (talk) 22:09, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Keep open and hope for resolution one way or another[edit]

Support closing with Pizzameister staying in the bin, and his future usernames too[edit]

  1. David Gerard (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
  2. --JorisEnter (talk) 18:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
  3. An all out ban seemingly can't be done now as there isn't enough evidence of the user account Pizzameister doing anythng to warrant a permaban. Thats why the bin option was the one I pushed for. Pizzameister is currently binned, and keeping it that way is fine for me. I was interested to see where the community stood on this issue and now I've found out. I continue to remain convinced that Pizzameister is a sockpuppet of AvengeroftheBoN, and this will influence my perceptions of his behavior. I believe that more evidence will be uncovered in the following months that will prove my position. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 18:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
  4. Did ikanreed miss the vote at the top? >.> (talk) 20:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
  5. Time to close the door on this one. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

What does this mean?[edit]

Apparently I am in the bin either way, because "close as inconclusive" seems to not include "and unbin Pizzameister". Which is kind of strange because there is actually no accusation whatsoever. The only accusation is that I am supposedly similar to some other user who is not even active here. So if someone accuses some other user of being another previously binned user they can just bin them without any reason at all? I am sorry, but this is bizarre! Pizzameister (talk) 21:59, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Is there any way to get out of the bin?[edit]

This discussion was moved here from RationalWiki:Saloon bar.

So I found that the coop case was closed and I am in the bin. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there does not seem to be an expiry date to this. So what would I have to do to get out of the bin either now or in any foreseeable future? Pizzameister (talk) 17:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Generally, make useful contributions, avoid trolling, prove you are actually valuable to have around. But since you are binned because people assume you are Avenger, IDK if that will work. Hmm, if Pizza proves himself, do we Unbin Avenger? StickySock (talk) 17:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
AFAIK, he could be unbinned if he were to somehow prove he wasn't Avenger. If he made useful contributions and wasn't deemed to be an ass then he coukd get out of the bin; Goonie had considered unbinning the Avenger account before the whole doxing incident. Also, if Pizza redeems himself I wouldn't see a problem with unbinning his main account, AvengeroftheBoN, since the individual and not the account are held accountable in a coop case.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC) 17:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
not really sure how it would possible to prove he is not avenger, whether he is lr not AMassiveGay (talk) 10:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Pb provided a good history of you actions that seem unreasonable, including attempting to evade punishment for previous actions instead of trying to turn that history around, so trying not to do so and making a new history of better actions seems a reasonable way to go. I know, it might be a blinding flash of the obvious but it seems like it needed to be said since this has been pointed out before and hasn't made much of an impression. Then at least you can have good reasons to make the case. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
The easiest way out of the bin is to create a new user. Leave all that shit behind and come back shiny and new. If you're new user ends up in the bin as well then, maybe, RW isn't the place for you. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 17:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
That's what he already did. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

You know, it would be easier to change my behavior (if that is what gets me out of the bin) if it were clear what behavior to change. I am at a loss when it comes to that. That's why I asked here. But if there is no realistic way to get let out of the bin, what do you expect me to do? Pizzameister (talk) 19:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Pure Avenger: "...if it were clear what behavior to change. I am at a loss when it comes to that." ---Mona- (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
If you actually want some hard guidelines, here they are. Don't revert people's edits without extensive talk page discussion and justification. Don't make gloating remarks like "Here in Germany, we behave a little differently" or things like that, especially towards Mona. Don't be dramatic, and don't play dumb when put in a corner. I know you're going to say it's unreasonable for you to be held to these standards, but this is roughly what you're going to have to do to get unbanned. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 20:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
My advice to you is to use your 1-per-half-hour edits to show the community your good intentions and value as a contributor instead of wasting them complaining about your binning. Good luck. (talk) 00:30, 9 April 42016 AQD (UTC)

If you really want to get out of the bin, change your behaviour not to obviously be the same fuckwit. If you don't understand that, you're not ready to edit more than once every half an hour - David Gerard (talk) 00:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Could you please be a bit less concrete, Mister Gerard? Your statement could almost be construed as containing actual meaning. Pizzameister (talk) 16:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
  1. You're editing like a fuckwit
  2. This got you back in the bin again
  3. You want to get out of the bin
  4. To do that, establish a track record of not editing like a fuckwit
  5. You literally don't understand how your editing is fuckwitted, which is sorta the problem that leads to you editing like a fuckwit
    and the key point, and if you don't grasp any of the above try to grasp this one:
  6. Your lack of comprehension is not our problem (any more)
HTH! - David Gerard (talk) 18:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Again, "editing like a fuckwit", despite being unnecessary use of profanity does not tell me or anybody else what exactly your problem with me is. Do you disagree with me on certain issues? Do you dislike my tone? Where's the beef? Pizzameister (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
You need to review point 6 again - David Gerard (talk) 22:53, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Is that burnt pizza I smell? ;-) Bongolian (talk) 23:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Well that's just swell. Not explaining yourself and then saying the other side is at fault if they don't understand. It is quite clear, that you, Mister Gerard don't want me here, otherwise you'd be less dismissive. And given that you are currently lording it over this wiki, including some really astonishing glitches (not that I am implying anything), getting your approval - however arbitrary it is doled out - may be kind of important. I only hope that you will see my ghost behind every corner, if and when I decide to stop contributing here. Quite frankly, I think this wiki could do better than you, especially when it comes to treating users decently and knowing things about technology, but what can I expect? I wish you enlightenment and wisdom, it might still encounter you while on the privy. Farewell, I shall not stoop to your level of profanity and thus I sincerely wish you nothing but the best. I shall return. Pizzameister (talk) 01:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Pizza. What have you contributed? What? If you were to stop editing tomorrow, what would the site lose out on? Have you helped document Eastern European autocrats and fascists? Have you fleshed out our articles on whackers and nutjobs? Have you created articles that were in high demand on the to-do list? All you have been doing lately is whining. CorruptUser (talk) 01:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

So I have to prove worthy to be allowed to edit on this wiki? Does this apply to every user? And exactly how is this determined? Which topics count, which ones don't? Do I get a penalty if I edit talk pages too much? This whole thing is extremely ridiculous. There are no rules and people can just be disallowed from editing without any reason whatsoever. Even if I make a small typo, I will have to wait half an hour before I can fix it and nobody will even pretend to give a reason besides profanity. And of course any complaint about that will just be brushed of as "whining". Well if you are making the rules, it will probably do no good to ask what you have done lately, except bullying users for no apparent reason. Have a nice whatever it is in your timezone. Pizzameister (talk) 03:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

It's still possible to contribute. Just, a bit slower. Stop complaining already, every complaint makes what few supporters you have left (FCP and I as devil's advocates) like you less and less. If you can prove that you are actually an asset to the wiki, then yea, we can easily make a case that you should be removed from the bin. It's not difficult to understand. CorruptUser (talk) 03:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
He's got a point there. David is much too dismissive and the glitches at this wiki are rather nasty (waiting about half an hour after you upload an image, repeated downtimes due to database problems, the software being too old, no mobile view, no SSL and the list goes on).--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 08:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC) 08:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Whatever point Pizza may have, going on about technical issues and David Gerard won't get him out of the bin, though. (Rather, the opposite.) (talk) 09:03, 10 April 42016 AQD (UTC)
142BoN, as you know, this is all quintessential Avenger and Arisboch. The first whines and cries that he simply cannot understand what it is he's done that has everyone so upset! The latter drops in some non sequiturs and misdirection -- usually boorishly stated. ---Mona- (talk) 15:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

So Corrupt User, I am addressing this question especially to you, as there seems to be cautious goodwill on your part, whereas Kugelschreiber seems to be very openly supportive and needs no convincing and David Gerard or Mona do not seem to want me around at all, no matter what I do. Hence my question, and please try to make an effort to give as concrete and as understandable and answer as you can muster, even if some of this seems to be obvious. Which concrete measures could I take to get out of the bin and which concrete things got me into the bin in the first place (apart from a coop vote, I know that, I just want to know how people got to vote the way they did, there was mighty little justification on the part of most voters). I would try to tone the "fuckwit" (not my words) down, if I knew what it is. But an overly broad wording is rather harmful if you want to encourage or discourage a certain type of behavior. And I do think, that CorruptUser is honestly interested in retaining me in some sort of "reformed" (whatever this means, hence my question) capacity. Thanks for your time. Pizzameister (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

STEP 1: Stop making whiny posts like these.
Got it? Ok, good.
STEP 2: Make more edits like this and this, instead of whining like you just were.
STEP 3: Keep doing above for MONTHS.
STEP 4: Smile when a mod notices this drastic change in behavior and unbins you.
This may seem difficult to understand, but really it's not. The problem is that many problem editors don't want to change their behavior even if they know it's wrong. You can show you are a useful editor by being a useful editor. Ok? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Good post!--JorisEnter (talk) 20:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Just one more "whiny post" if those edits are what makes me an asset to the wiki, which kinds of posts do you have in mind as me being harmful to the wiki? Given that I have been punished, there should be plenty of examples, and knowing them would make it easier to avoid them. Pizzameister (talk) 21:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
My fucking god do I really have to spell out every goddam bad edit you've made?!?! "Uh, well, uh, I dunno what bad edits I've made? I'm innocent!! Waaahhh!!!" Give me a break. What's this? Why are you posting on Mona's talk page saying "do you have an agenda"? Why do you care? You don't come off as friendly, and are starting a confrontation. If you don't understand that this is inflammatory and designed to provoke a hostile response, you better learn. This doesn't help either, and you're just begging for a response. If you don't know that, you need to learn it really fast or you won't get unbinned. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Cue AvePizza misrepresenting the issue as "Oh, so it's just people disagreeing with Mona that you don't like." (Unless ArisKugel beats him to it.) (talk) 03:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)