RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive46

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Desysop Pbfreespace[edit]

Or Ban. Seriously, this is getting tiresome and Ze is just creating drama. — Unsigned, by: StickySock / talk / contribs


  1. During the last coop case (re Pizzameister), Pbfreespace3 threatened a BoN with doxxing as well as blocking them for days merely making acerbic comments that he didn't care for. He also blocked a new account that hadn't made a single edit, another new account and another B0N who were making edits elsewhere on the wiki completely unrelated to the Chicken Coop, apparently because he couldn't trust unknowns to be active onsite while a Chicken Coop case was under discussion. This is bizarre and completely unreasonable use of sysop tools. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC),
    Weaseloid, that's not "doxing" or a threat of same. Threatening to show that a BoN is "Anonymous Identity X" isn't a dox as that concept is reasonably understood. Doxing exposes the real life identity of anonymous users. Pb3 did get carried away with the new accounts, but hasn't he agreed not to block them like that anymore?---Mona- (talk) 17:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
    He intimated that he could & would find & reveal the BoN's "real human name" & address. When asked "are you threatening me?", he replied affirmatively. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
    I don't see that, at all. Could you quote the language you feel "initmates" that message?---Mona- (talk) 18:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
    It was a ploy to get the BoN to stop posting in the coop. That's it. I had no idea who the person was or what their address was. It was an empty threat. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 18:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
    You're not in charge of who posts in the coop. If I threatened you would you stop posting here? WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
    Well, I don't see any implied threat to dox anyone. So, I'm voting no.---Mona- (talk) 18:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
    OK Weaseloid, I was wrong. I won't ever try to stop a BoN from talking in the Chicken Coop ever again. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
  2. I cant say much more than what weasel already said. Bubba41102The place where you can scream at me 17:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
  3. Needs some ice for his banhammer boner. Robledo (talk) 19:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
  4. Bringers of paranoid ravings should be punished in kind. --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
    Pbfreespace has been a heavy load on this wiki and her good reputation, just like the chemical element he chose to name himself after. Such blatant abuse of a privilege he has obviously proven unworthy of requires swift and harsh punishment. Pizzameister (talk) 17:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
    Ineligible and binned, no matter how hard you try.--JorisEnter (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
    Ah, yes. I definitely named my username after the element lead. Yeah. *Sigh* Pbfreespace3 (talk) 20:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
    Arguing over whether or not temp-banning IPs for posting inflammatory comments in the coop is fruitless at this point. I was actually surprised Avenger would come in here to help his friend again after what happened, but that was rather short-sighted of me. Now the support front is showing itself yet again. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
    #BurgerDominar (talk) 00:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
    You are ineligible to vote.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC) 00:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

con un límite de tiempo establecido[edit]

  1. Actionable offences did occur. I'd say take the mop away, but only for a set amount of time, or we'll just end up with another coop case again. Two weeks maybe? (talk) 19:49, 12 April 42016 AQD (UTC)
    What bothers me, tho, is it's unreasonable to apply the word "dox" to the silly "threat" cited here. It simply was not that. And, lots of sysops make errors, or get carried away when upset, and simply get warned to knock it off. What's so egregious here to require any de-mopping?---Mona- (talk) 21:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
    Was it silly? Sure. But I don't think there's any value in letting sysops imply "if you don't do what I want I might reveal personal information about you", however unserious, silly or overwrought they might go about it. And the bans over "we have a coop going on, come back later" were also bogus. (talk) 21:20, 12 April 42016 AQD (UTC)
    Yes, I see that now. I'd asked Weaseloid to cite the words of an actual doxing threat. Those qualify.---Mona- (talk) 01:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
    I already did cite it: here, here & here. Why should I have to post the same quote repeatedly to somebody who has already told me she won't follow the link & doesn't give a fuck? WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


  1. This is an illegitimate vote, but here my vote goes. I'd urge everyone else to vote no as well. If people have a beef with me, they should raise it after this case is over rather than earmarking it into an existing case. What is this, Congress? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
    We should wait until all dissent is thoroughly purged and anyone even so much as thinking of raising a complaint has to live in fear of Pb. Then once the jury can be guaranteed to be stacked, we will vote. /sarcasm. StickySock (talk) 17:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
    Ahh, yes, fear the evil Pb!! I shall purge all dissent! That's why I get along with people I profoundly disagree with, like Owlman, CorruptUser, frikkin Mona, and others. I try to rid this place of them all! Pbfreespace3 (talk) 17:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
    Well thanks, I guess? CorruptUser (talk) 23:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
  2. While Pb's banning of new users and/or BoNs that were completely harmless was rather stupid, I think he got that message. No need to punish him any further for this, especially since the banned accounts were unblocked almost immediately.--JorisEnter (talk) 18:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
  3. There was no threat to dox anyone. Ands Pb3 has already agreed not to repeat his mistake with the blocks. Many sysops do stuff that has to be corrected and warned about without actually taking their mops away.---Mona- (talk) 18:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
    It's interesting how little you care when someone else is threatened with doxing. [Special:Contributions/|]] (talk) 22:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
    What is it you do not understand about these words I wrote and to which you replied: "There was no threat to dox anyone."---Mona- (talk) 00:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
    I retract that. I'd asked Weaseloid to cite the words of a threatened dox. 142 just showed me.---Mona- (talk) 01:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  4. While the threat to dox - empty or not - was clearly outrageous and in very poor taste, I don't doubt that Pb has learned his lesson, and I believe him when he says he won't impede users discussing in the coop ever again. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
    he's literally trying to dox somebody right now in this very coop case lol Champion (talk) 03:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
    Rev, there was NO THREAT TO DOX.---Mona- (talk) 00:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  5. Silly proposal from ineligible commenter - David Gerard (talk) 23:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
  6. Thought police much? Just a stern talking to is sufficient. CorruptUser (talk) 23:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
  7. What more can be said? To the thrash this proposal goes. Typhoon (talk) 07:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  8. He should stop donning his detective fedora when it comes to BoNs, but a lengthy desysoping is unnecessary.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 14:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC) 14:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


  1. Not voting for obvious reasons, may do so when I get home. But seriously, screw the wiki drama already. Ze is only doing this as part of the thought police. StickySock (talk) 13:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
  2. This is illegitimate. We're voting on 1 thing here.— Unsigned, by: Pbfreespace3 / talk / contribs
    There is no rule against parallel Coop cases to shyster for you over.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 14:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC) 14:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
    Yeah, there is, Arisboch. Have you read the community standards? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
    You shouldn't attempt to lecture people on the community standards fresh off banning users for nothing and threatening to dox people. (talk) 01:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
    Pb3 is either correct or not entirely independent of anything real or imagined he himself did. However, if the community standards do not permit this, the particular words should be quoted and/or linked.---Mona- (talk) 01:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
    Perhaps the sub-text of the comment above wasn't clear enough. The community standards explicitly state that they are the avenue for removing sysop rights and there is of course no prohibition on parallel coop cases. I doubt Pb has ever read them. (talk) 01:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
    I simply asked him if he has read the standards. I protested that adding a second issue distracts from the real subject of the coop case. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  3. El baaa. (talk) 14:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC) (Sophie)


  1. Mmm, those tasty goats. (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Chupa Chups[edit]

  1. The lollipops I loved since my youth.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 15:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC) 15:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Cabaret concerning carcinogenic caramel[edit]

  1. Carelessly credulous crap. Cease caring completely. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Casually create catastrophes, casualties[edit]

  1. Concur with Cabaret. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

If doxing is so bad....[edit]

Or threatening it, why could I just dox anyone I like and simply keep making new accounts each time I'm banned? Because what stops me from doxing the many people here whose real names I know, isn't the rules at this wiki. It's a behavior I independently oppose. But let's say I didn't. Let's say I loved to dox people who piss me off. What would deter me from doxing as much as I like and just signing up with another account, wait a month or two, and then dox someone else? Wash, rinse, repeat.---Mona- (talk) 01:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Night mode, range-blocks, check-user, extensive background checks and a trigger happy ban-finger. Has never failed to build up a vibrant community. (talk) 02:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Letting abusive assholes with all the decency and good will of Youtube commenters romp here at will is the ideal way to build a vibrant, productive community! And, you did not address the question posed in my hypo.---Mona- (talk) 03:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Why are you here? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Pity. (talk) 02:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
I wanna know. What's wrong with that? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
You an Aussie, mate? Or is that a proxy? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Maybe not from Brisbane, but definitely Australia. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
It's actually Sydney, where you're editing from. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Doxing someone in a thread about how bad doxing is while a vote is ongoing to desysop you due to doxing; you really exemplify the new breed of RW editor. (talk) 03:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
The hypocrisy is really over 9000.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 03:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC) 03:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Apparently Google searching an IP address counts as doxing. You learn something new every day. By the way, why are you here in this coop case, Pbfreespace3 (talk) 11:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
You'd almost wonder if User:Arisboch has created a sock.--JorisEnter (talk) 11:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Possibly. He may be paying for a service, or it may be one of his friends, seeing as the IP appears to come from Australia though. If it was Dresden or Stuttgart, then we'd have clear evidence. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 11:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Because you're supposed to be an ethical attorney who respects the rules and rule of law? And you know, relies on verifiable evidence instead of speculation? You've already said you're not a shyster, so... --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Who are you actually talking to, Castaigne. Me? Joris? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 22:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Look at his indentation, Pb. He's addressing Mona (who he still has a bone to pick with, apparently). (talk) 22:30, 13 April 42016 AQD (UTC)
She was being rhetorical if you couldn't tell. This discussion here is pretty much futile at this point. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 22:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
It's not surprising that Castaigne conflates speculation with evidence. He rolls like that. Some time ago, in the Saloon, I already set forth why objections to circumstantial evidence are moronic. I suppose I could do it again, if necessary. Or, I'll just go get the link.---Mona- (talk) 23:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


JorisEnter just blocked three B0Ns for three days for "shitting on the Coop" (i.e. posting harmless comments here). I've taken his sysop & tech abilities away for now. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Ignoring for the moment that this desysopping happened without any notice in the coop or any other form of discussion whatsoever, let us have a look at what this BoN's intentions could have been:
  1. It was just somebody who happened to pass by and did not know what the Coop was;
  2. It was a troll from FSM knows where who wanted to have some fun;
  3. It was a user who was not using their own account, for whatever reason.
I entrust that you all have the mental capacities to see that option (1) is bullshit. Option (2) might have been the case, but given this BoN's comments on my talk page and almost directly above, I presume that they are at least familiar with this Wiki; especially the point about not banning BoNs for no reason bc it's a waste of time seems like it comes from somebody who knows RW, leaving us with option (3). Now who could that be?
(I'll give you a hint: this is a coop case concerning a suspected Arisboch sock. And something with a Dutch guy. And usage of sockpuppets by somebody.)--JorisEnter (talk) 11:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Your speculations about identity & intent notwithstanding, those IPs did & said nothing that was bannable. Put your paranoia away & stop trying to enforce non-existent rules. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
The BoN was most likely either a banned user, or somebody who did not want to edit under their normal name. In the first case, they should stay banned ("Ban evasion" is a block reason for a reason); in the second, they should stop being a coward and use their own account.
Furthermore, since can people get promoted without any sort of coop case? RW:CS states that "in some extreme cases, where a sysop is being particularly disruptive, another sysop may need to "promote" them as soon as possible to prevent further vandalism or abuse", but banning an IP that was fucking with the Coop is nowhere near "particularly disruptive". Pb banned a number of users and IPs that had not made a single edit and was cooped for that, resulting in what seems to be a consensus around "yes it was stupid but it's not worthy of de-sysopping", so why the heck do I suddenly get promoted for banning a fucking troll/banned user?--JorisEnter (talk) 13:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Because you're doing the same things as Pbfreesspace has been called out on. You haven't learned jack shit. You two are not in charge of who can post in the Chicken Coop. We have no rule against anonymous editing, on this page, your talk page or anywhere else. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
...apart from RW:CS#Talk pages, which states that "Posts from users who have been blocked from the site, but are circumventing the block by using an alternate IP address or sockpuppet account" can be removed. This edit seems to suggest that the user knows RW for more than just a couple of days - presumably, they have edited here before. Why would they not be editing under their normal name, if it were not for the fact that they have been banned (or binned, but I presume it's not pizzameister).
But let's for the moment suppose that my actions (banning an IP that was posting shit in the coop) constitute some sort of criminal offence. Pb, whose blocks were arguably harsher than mine (and some just completely unnecessary), got cooped and has not been desysopped - which is indeed correct according to the CS and what I think most people would consider good practice. Meanwhile, when I tell someone who shouldn't be here to fuck off, I get desysopped by a mod who acted without consulting the community. That's just nonsensical.--JorisEnter (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Weaseloid: Why is "ban evasion" a reason given with the block function? ---Mona- (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

You'd almost start wondering why blocks even exist in the first place (perhaps the odd spammer, but not much more than that).--JorisEnter (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Correct. Blocks are for dealing with things like vandalism & spam. Not just for posting comments that you dislike nor for posting anonymously. The evidence of "ban evasion" here doesn't run any deeper than "my spidey senses are tingling". The IPs you blocked are the other side of the world from Arisboch or AvengeroftheBoN. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Weaseloid is clearly in the right above.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Weaseloid, I repeat: Why is "ban evasion" a reason given with the block function?---Mona- (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Go ask Paravant; he added it. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
I see. So at one time a mod added that, it has remained, and you unilaterally de-mopped and removed tech abilities from a user for "enforcing non-existent rules" that apparently do exist. Or if they don't, that was never explained to JorisEnter (or anyone else), or even explained to him how to properly enforce it. You just harshly sanctioned him on your own accord. Do you feel that is right and fair? ---Mona- (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
That's not in any way an accurate summary. If you think there is credible evidence that the Australian IP addresses JorisEnter blocked belong to a banned user, let's see it? WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
"That's not in any way an accurate summary." If so, you fail to point out a single inaccuracy. It stands until you show a fatal weakness in the argument.---Mona- (talk) 23:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
I think he already did by referring to the lack of "credible evidence that the Australian IP addresses JorisEnter blocked belong to a banned user". (talk) 23:28, 13 April 42016 AQD (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Respectfully, 142, no he didn't. There is, in fact, a rule (as reflected on the drop-down blocking menu) that JorisEnter relied on; Weaseloid claimed he relied on a "non-existent" one. That JorisEnter made it up. To rely on an actual rule, but do it incorrectly, merits only a reversal of the blocks and an explanation of why the rule is felt not to apply based on insufficient reasoning or evidence. Not this nuclear option Weaseloid took.---Mona- (talk) 23:45, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

For the duration of these coops it might be wise to keep Joris promoted for now; people have been way too triggerhappy blocking people just for posting stuff in the coop (with or without being logged in—seriously, who cares what these IPs' account is?). I don't think Joris was demopped completely according to the rules, though, so unless the mob decides he should be sanctioned in some way, he should get his stuff back at the end of this coop. (talk) 22:01, 13 April 42016 AQD (UTC)

As far as I can see, the "people" who have way too trigger-happy are just Pbfreespace3 & JorisEnter. There's been no acknowledgement from Jorris that he was wrong to block these IPs or indication that he won't do the same again. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
I have already apologized for my bans. I would advise Joris to do the same. What if Joris could get his sysopship back in a week or so if he apologizes and swears not to do it again? Would that be an acceptable outcome, Weaseloid? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 22:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
In fact, if Joris were to apologize and swear not to do it again, there'd be no reason to wait a week to re-mop him. In the case that he would pledge the previous to the community, I'd support an instantaneous re-mopping of this good editor of ours. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Rev, the block function offres as a reason for a block: "ban evasion." Why was JorisEnter not allowed to rely on that? If he relied incorrectly, why was the proper use of that reason (whatever that may be; no one has been able to explain how JorisEnter's use was improper) not simply explained to him? Why this unilaeral, nuclear option from Weaseloid?---Mona- (talk) 23:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Sure, I won't block any BoNs editing the Coop anymore. (as a side note, the user this all started with appears to have left.)--JorisEnter (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

That settles it in my book. If you're not remopped already, it's time for that to happen, with this edit in mind. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I concur with Reverend Black Percy. JorisEnter should be remopped. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Sanctions are required (add your suggestions here)[edit]

I suggest a short warning, and then resysoped. Oh wait, that already happened, so... CorruptUser (talk) 22:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

No sanctions (Joris gets his stuff back)[edit]

  1. (talk) 22:01, 13 April 42016 AQD (UTC)
  2. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 22:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard (talk) 22:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  4. Dumb, unjustified actions on JE's part. Not sufficient to remove mop. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 22:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  5. You can't fault the man when "ban evasion" is drop-down option in the block user dialog. Besides, he's clearly not a scumbag. That being said, I've also recommended he cool it. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  6. The "ban evasion" is on the menu. Therefore, Weaseloid's claim that JorisEnter was "enforcing nonexistent rules" is simply wrong.---Mona- (talk) 23:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
    Your reading comprehension is simply wrong. We have no rule against IP editors posting comments in the Chicken Coop, nor should we. Your fixation on whether Joris selected an option from a dropdown menu rather than whether the B0Ns he blocked did anything to warant it is bizarre, but it comes as no surprise that you would support trigger-happy use of the banhammer & not much care who it's aimed at. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
    "We have no rule against IP editors posting comments in the Chicken Coop," He has explained he felt this was a ban evasion. Yes, there isn't a rule against someone here also commenting as an IP. But JorisEnter thought it was also a possible ban evasion. Either way, why not simply ask him, talk to him, figure out what his reasoning is before this rush to de-mopping and de-teching?---Mona- (talk) 02:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
    I agree with Weaseloid. I still think that JE is not a malicious actor. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 23:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  7. Remopp him.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 00:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC) 00:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  8. Was dumb, but isn't desysop worthy.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 14:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC) 14:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit war and possible abuse of page protection with regards to Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton[edit]

I have noticed that there were quite heavy edit wars and fights over whether to protect the relevant pages with regards to the 2016 nomination race on the democratic side and its leading candidates Bernie Sanders and Hillary Rodham Clinton. I think we should decide what consequences should be drawn. Pizzameister (talk) 18:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)




  1. People should not be removing sysop rights or protecting pages to win edit wars. Anyone who has done these things repeatedly, perhaps to an extent that they had previously been admonished for doing these things should be sysoprevoked. Hipocrite (talk) 18:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Do nothing[edit]

  1. This suggestion of consequences for a motherfucking edit war can fucking die in a goddamn fire. --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
    Please refrain from foul language. Pizzameister (talk) 19:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
    Fuck a bunch of that. --Castaigne2 (talk) 20:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  2. The edit war explains the Hill/Bern conflict better than the pages do. Annquin (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  3. Everything seems to be getting handled on the talk page. Like it oughtta be. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 22:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


Archive this attempt at third-party shitstirring in short order[edit]

  1. With optional block for Pizzameister for bringing this shit here at all - David Gerard (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
    Your inexplicable enabling of the Champion Internet Fucktard, Ryulong, has robbed you of all credibility here, DG. Now you seek to repeat the trick with Mona and Pbfreespace3. Go nuts and see what kind a joyless shithole you end up with. I'll particularly enjoy watching your idiot progeny when they inevitably turn on you, too. Robledo (talk) 21:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  2. So sick of coops. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  3. This was an attempt to waste a massive amount of time.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 21:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC) 21:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  4. What DG said.--JorisEnter (talk) 21:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Block appeal[edit]

Hi all. I'm bringing this here as the discussion at the bar seemed to get nowhere. Isn't time User:Fat Aardvark gets unblocked? I mean it wasn't like the block was justified and the dictator Paravant has finally gone and didn't God say in the bible that "thou shall love thy aardvarks"?--Lord High Worm (talk) 10:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

TrollJorisEnter (talk) 12:00, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Actually I'm not trying to troll I just want to see justice.--Lord High Worm (talk) 17:04, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Troll FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 19:09, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Desysop, deautopatrol Sandflapjack[edit]

For edit warring:

It does take two to tango -- but SFJ has managed to seriously edit war with JorisEnter, -Mona-, and Reverend Black Percy all in the last month.

Desysopping and deautopatrolling slightly reduces their edit speed and adds red !'s. It's essentially the only punishment, short of a topic ban or vandal bin, that we can apply.

More generally, I wish there was a way to make RW use the 3RRWikipedia. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 02:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Not so much "all in the last month" as "all in the last couple days". Someone has been busy. >.> (talk) 02:22, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I wouldn't mind if he pissed off for a bit... CorruptUser (talk) 02:52, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion area[edit]

Because the links are a huge amount of text. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 02:04, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

This is seriously getting out of hand. Why in not-god's blue earth should I be demoted as psyop when I havent actually even used any of the tools at all? Its not an abuse of power if you arent ware of the power and havent actually used any of it. Mona just took them away without even as much as talking to anyone about it, and i think thats some kentucky fried bullshit right there. She and Blackperry are just mad because they are being challenged by a literal walking pile of garbage (me). If anyone is abusing power, it's mona. She initiated an edit war and decided to lock the page, unlocked it so she can edit it, then relocked it. She kept saying "take it to the talk page", and I DID, but they are so set in stone about their plans for the page that they continuously ignore my arguement, instead attacking my tone and basically going "haha u mad bro ecks dee" I'm being unfairly fucked with here, and I refuse to take "well you shouldnt have been so rude :(" as an excuse for abuse of power and causing a shitstorm. Sandflapjack (talk) 02:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks FCP. Let me note, that after SFJ alone on his side, and I and another editor on the other, went though a few rounds of reverts, I repeatedly asked SFJ to defend his preference on the Bernie Sanders talk page. He ignored this, and then refused, calling it a useless "tea party." Pb3 then put a 5 mini block on him and so then he went to the Bernie Sanders talk page, but all he did was angrily rant, convincing no one, and not just me. So he began reverting AGAIN. If an editor won't use the talk page; has to be dragged kicking and screaming to the talk page only after a block; and won't accept that his preference hasn't got a majority, that is not an editor who merits autopatrol, much less sysop status.---Mona- (talk) 02:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
"Mona just took them away without even as much as talking to anyone" Actually, what I did was almost immediately undo Hippocrit's mopping of you, because in his edit summary he absurdly said you "needed it." That was because I had put 24 hour sysop-level page protection on the Sanders article page to make you stop edit warring when no attempts to reason with you met success. You "need" to be able to evade a necessary protection like Donald Trump needs to bolster his ego.---Mona- (talk) 02:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
He appears to need some time off in order to chill off.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC) 03:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Yup. SFJ has been edit warring way too much to be allowed a mop - especially considering that his edits have not been useful enough to merit a mop in the first place. For some reason, Hipocrite decided to give him one anyway - I think most people would agree that he did not really 'need it'.--JorisEnter (talk) 09:04, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Assuming he stops edit warring and flametrolling talk pages, there won't be need for a vandal binning. However, what is entirely clear is that SFJ does not need a mop for anything, and on top of that, he has repeatedly demonstrated that he cannot handle one either (see FCP's above compilation). Giving him a disciplinary time-out is overdue. This case needs to be brought forward. I now count five editors in this thread alone who overtly question his mop. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:57, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Also, to quote SFJ (above): "[Mona] and Blackperry are just mad because they are being challenged by a literal walking pile of garbage (me)." Truer words are rarely spoken. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Good post!--JorisEnter (talk) 15:04, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Given that everyone but SFJ (and possibly Hipocrite and DG) seems to think that this is a good idea, I'm going to remove sysop and autopatrol, unless opinion swings back the other way. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 15:59, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring is no abuse of the sysop tools.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 20:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC) 20:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
What we have with SFJ is "edit warring plus." It all stacks up to mopping him being absurd. He's flirting with the bin and that's no time to mop a user.---Mona- (talk) 20:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
What the devil is edit warring plus?? He's also no vandal.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 20:25, 16 April 2016 (UTC) 20:25, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
What the fuck is Edit warring Plus? Is that a more inclusive edit war, or are you just makin some bullshit up to make it sound more serious. Sandflapjack (talk) 01:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
I assume she meant that you were edit warring plus some other problematic behaviour.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:59, 17 April 2016 (UTC) 03:59, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
This ban is some serious fuck. If youre going to demod me, get some impartial people to look it over, not the people activley involved in the conflict. Thats letting into mob mentality. Sandflapjack (talk) 01:44, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Take heart. You have Arisboch defending you. He's got a stellar reputation for good and reasonable behavior here.---Mona- (talk) 01:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Ah, poor newbie. RationalWiki is an unabashed mobocracy! (talk) 02:18, 17 April 42016 AQD (UTC)
Those certainly are words Sandflapjack (talk) 03:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


...has the idea that the section above should be collapsed and that other users' comments can be removed as he likes it. Other editors disagree, but he does not appear to understand that. Meanwhile, he also thinks blocking people for an hour is an acceptable thing to do. 0xπ seconds is okay, but this genuinely interferes with editing. Should this interference with other people's discussion be tolerated, or does Rpeh kindly need to be told to stop being a fucking nuisance.--JorisEnter (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I have temporarily removed Rpeh's mop. He had banned Pb for 3.14 months, and while the latter easily could have unblocked himself, this is just getting out of hand. I'll be happy (?) to give it back to him when this is all over, unless the mob decides otherwise of course.--JorisEnter (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit: CorruptUser has set Rpeh's status to Sysoprevoke as well for the same reason.
EDIT edit: Changed my mind for now. We'll see. CorruptUser (talk) 21:10, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Adieu. If you really think I was the one disrupting this debate then good luck to you all. I now see why the better users had already left. rpeh •TCE 21:06, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Wait a sec, think I've been too hasty on review. Just saw a long ban with no good reason given. CorruptUser (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Other than "constantly messing with other people's comments, blocking people with no reason and being a disruptive asshole in general"?--JorisEnter (talk) 21:10, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
May be enough for temporary cool-down, but not sysoprevoke. CorruptUser (talk) 21:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, whatever. At least the random banning has stopped.--JorisEnter (talk) 21:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Taking away a mop for blocking someone who can unblock themselves is stupid and a waste of time. Acei9 21:33, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


  1. See above.--JorisEnter (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  2. I think he should stop his behavior and undo it. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 20:48, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  3. Nothing that doesn't violate the rules should be reverted. But the prohibited "personal attacks" in the coop should stand. A mod and others can admonish about that, and maybe sanction for repeated and extreme attacks, but the comments should remain. They are part of the record and speak to the judgment of the attacker.---Mona- (talk) 20:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


  1. Kill! Maim! Burn! Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Anally Violate[edit]

  1. rpeh •TCE 20:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  2. Acei9 21:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  3. Always down for that. CorruptUser (talk) 21:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Insta-archive frivolous coop case?[edit]

  1. There are no rules against collapse boxes, the removal of the one comment was likely accidental, and desysoping over one overzealous, exaggerative and possibly humorous ban seems pretty excessive. Only reason I haven't archived this already is maybe you guys want to have some fun with this case first. (talk) 21:45, 17 April 42016 AQD (UTC)
    Yeah, I made a mistake with the sysoprevoke. I admit it :(. CorruptUser (talk) 21:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
    If he only did it once...[66][67] Also note that other uses apparently found his collapse boxes useless: [68][69][70][71][72]. He apparently did not get this message, telling others to "shut up". No attempt at reasonable discussion, just adding collapse boxes and telling others to "shut up" or "don't feed the troll" (what troll?)--JorisEnter (talk) 21:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
    Yup, that's what I'd call a regular edit war (one over trivial differences, too). Not something worth cooping someone over. (talk) 22:03, 17 April 42016 AQD (UTC)

How shall we punish CorruptUser[edit]

Force him to walk on hands and knees making goat sounds[edit]
  1. OOO! This! --CorruptUser (talk) 21:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
    You don't need to ask the community first, you know. Go ahead and follow your heart's desire. ;) (talk) 22:00, 17 April 42016 AQD (UTC)


The Prosecution's Case[edit]

The charge is that Kugelschreiber is a sockpuppet account of permanently banned user Arisboch, and if found guilty, the punishment would be both a permanent ban, as the user is circumventing a decision imposed by a moderator and deceptively evading said ruling.


Kugelschreiber's first edit was 4 weeks after Arisboch was permabanned. This is because Arisboch decided to create a new account to continue editing.

One of his first edits was in a coop case, just like Pizzameister/Avenger. Attempted to vote, even though he was ineligible. How interesting! Guess what else? The coop case was about Mona, who Arisboch hated and tried to dox! Interesting that a brand new user would have a highly developed opinion about a personal dispute here. It's as if he already had skin in the game!

Kugelschreiber likes to edit from around 8-9:00 to around 23:00 or so. Arisboch had the same editing hours down to the exact hour. This means they have the same editing patterns.

Kugelschreiber likes to edit articles about Russia and Russian politics, including articles Arisboch has edited before. Arisboch stated he spoke Russian, was interested in Russia, and claimed he hailed from that country. They are the same nationality with the same political interests.

Arisboch was a Zionist, pro-Jewish, and pro-Israel, as he stated on his page. Kugelschreiber is also all of these things, as evidenced by his editing pattern that follows.

Arisboch did not like a particular piece of text on the Syria article that said Israeli spies were present in Syria, edited the Syria article before, and tried to eliminate that text. Kugelschreiber got into an edit war yesterday over that same piece of text, as well as others. He reverted Mona, a user Arisboch also hated, almost a dozen times within a few short hours. He obviously feels quite strongly about this issue, as did Arisboch.

They both use a similar tone when talking about Mona. They both accuse others of being "Mona's minions, trying to silence those she disagrees with".

Arisboch used the obscure word 'shyster' towards Mona many times: "The shystering is over 9000.--Arisboch". "Yes, give her new rules to shyster over.--Arisboch", "according to the RW article, at least, shysters ain't only lawyers...--Arisboch". These were all said by Arisboch towards Mona. Now we find a brand-new user, Kugelschreiber, using this exact obscure word against Mona and myself even after the word was brought up, which can be seen below.

In the discussion below, Kugelschreiber said to me, and I quote: "this looks too much like an adjustment ex post facto to justify the block." This is almost is exactly what Arisboch himself said on Kiwifarms. He said "They first permabanned me and then changed the rules to make the ban kosher". You can search it, as the link can't be posted due to personal information. The fact that both Kugelschreiber and Arisboch would use the same argument of why Arisboch's ban was unjustified is a pretty good giveaway that they are the same person.


Arisboch was banned by a moderator for doxxing. There is ample evidence that Kugelschreiber is a sockpuppet of binned user Arisboch, who is continuing to circumvent his ban. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 14:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I also recall Kugel saying he moved to Germany with his family and they're now fully integrated, just like a certain other person! link (talk) 17:58, 12 April 42016 AQD (UTC)
And here he's seeing how far he can take plausible deniability. (talk) 18:17, 12 April 42016 AQD (UTC)
It's always been obvious this is Arisboch. But really, what difference can it make to ban this account? He'll be right back and take more care to hide his distinctive style and personal details. This site doesn't care if banned users come back. So he will. Again and again. Ditto Avenger. I voted for the ban,but it's a charade and exercise in futility. We'll just keep arguing about their socks forever and ever, cooping some of them, and the drama-fest will be never-ending. Becasue most people want rules that lead to that.---Mona- (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
At least we'll be wasting their time as much as they're wasting ours, I suppose. *shrugs* (talk) 18:33, 12 April 42016 AQD (UTC)


  1. Stated above. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 11:54, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
  2. I seem to remember both Arisboch and Kugelschreiber letting their IP slip out, and in both cases it came from Stuttgart or thereabouts. In Pizzameister's coop, Kugelschreiber did not hesitate to use coarse language in Russian, as was Arisboch's habit. Anybody with two brain cells to rub together can see that they quack a lot alike, abrasively and abusively. Don't forget the plumage! Oh, the beautiful ducky plumage! What earned Arisboch his ban is equally sauce for Kugelschreiber. Go ahead and dismiss this, Arisboch, you know you want to. SmartFeller (talk) 16:35, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
    I seem to remember both Arisboch and Kugelschreiber letting their IP slip out, and in both cases it came from Stuttgart or thereabouts.- SmartFeller Sources or it didn't happen.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 16:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC) 16:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
    Finding Arisboch's IP is easy enough. Just look at the first few revisions he revdelled. (And oh hey, look who decided to use the same redundant template to quote a post right above them as a certain other person frequently did.) (talk) 17:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
    Ah, here we are. Arisboch's IP. Took a bit more effort to find than I'd thought. (talk) 17:54, 12 April 42016 AQD (UTC)
    Appears to be registered to Uni-Stuttgart.--JorisEnter (talk) 17:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
  3. Arisboch told Carpetsmoker he was going to evade the ban by using socks (I'll fetch the email of which I think have a copy if anyone doubts this, unless CS simply quoted it. I don't recall). Moreover, only a non-sentient being could fail to see all the far-from-coincidental similarities between Arisboch and his sock. Right down to the crap in the sig line. He was banned for, among other things, participating with a group offsite that was coordinating a campaign to contact my adult son and his neighbors to tell them foul things about me. Requiring me, as a condition of editing here, to interact with someone who has abused me is immoral. Last nite he repeatedly demanded that I engage him over Israel-Palestine related edits. Why should I have to do that? ---Mona- (talk) 17:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
  4. O tempora, o mores! Senatus haec intellegit, Consul videt, et hic tamen vivit. (vivit not to be taken literally regarding this case, though).--JorisEnter (talk) 17:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
    Joris is temporarily desysoped. Do we still include non sysop votes? StickySock (talk) 16:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
    Pretty damn sure "eligible users" are not related to "sysops", at least according to RW:CS#Voting. The desysop was not exactly a community decision either.--JorisEnter (talk) 16:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
    Yeah it doesn't look like its restricted to sysops. HOWEVER, it looks like it isn't restricted to non binned users either. So that means that AsockoftheBon can vote in a few weeks but ArisSock (if guilty) can't. Not sure how I feel about that. StickySock (talk) 16:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  5. Blitheringly obvious - David Gerard (talk) 23:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
  6. Doxxing is a serious violation and this guy can't be more obvious in his ban evading. Typhoon (talk) 07:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  7. Ban: Kugelschreiber gives himself away as Arisboch. Although it is true that shyster is not an obscure word, it is a noun. It is not used as a verb in standard English. Both Arisboch and Kugelschreiber have used it as a verb. Bongolian (talk) 18:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  8. To help balance out all the no-ban votes with crappy non-reasons as justification. (talk) 22:28, 13 April 42016 AQD (UTC)
  9. Has been a disruptive ass.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 12:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC) 12:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
    #BurgerDominar (talk) 00:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
    Ineligible. CorruptUser (talk) 00:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  10. This is getting silly. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

No Ban[edit]

  1. First off, the COOP IS NOT FOR SETTING PRECEDENT, this is clearly stated at the top of the page, the coop is used on an individual basis, so please stop using coop cases as policy precedent. Secondly as before you have failed to provide sufficient evidence to confirm anything. Bubba41102The place where you can scream at me 12:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
    The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming. And, contrary to popular belief, circumstantial evidence is used, justly, every day in Western common law courts to convict people or to hold them liable for damages. That's because it is possibly the most reliable form of evidence, superior even to eye witness testimony in most instances.---Mona- (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
  2. No ban.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
  3. There's even less here than in the AotBoN/Pizzameister case. (ETA: less as of initial posting of vote, more info was edited in post hoc. Vote may change as things develop). ℕoir LeSable (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
    Which is a very great deal of "less." But the actual problem is that this site doesn't care how egregious behavior is that leads to a ban, including doxing. A guy could upload child porn, and as long as he simply made a new account and denied being the banned account, this site says it's all good. ---Mona- (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
    Even if that is/would be true, no-one cares. It ain't no court here, shyster somewhere else.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 17:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC) 17:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
    Arisboch frequently employed the word "shyster" to me. Moreover, it's immaterial that this isn't a courtroom; what is material is that circumstantial evidence is reliable, which is why courts admit it into evidence.---Mona- (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
    Occurs three times in your talk archive. Guess who (indeed) used it all those three times?--JorisEnter (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
    I linked Mona's talk page above. Arisboch used this obscure word towards Mona many times: "The shystering is over 9000.--Arisboch". "Yes, give her new rules to shyster over.--Arisboch", "according to the RW article, at least, shysters ain't only lawyers...--Arisboch". These were all said by Arisboch towards Mona. Now we find a brand-new user using this exact obscure word against Mona. He's a sock. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 17:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
    (I tried to support Mona's "shyster" argument btw)--JorisEnter (talk) 17:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
    Arisboch was also, as his sock does here, fond of the colloqiual use of "ain't."---Mona- (talk) 17:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
    Are you trying to get other people who disagree with you with at worst through getting the wrong guy and at best through wikilawyering and swinging your wikicop e-penis around banned again? You doing it again as Mona's minion. No, I'm not Arisboch, whether you believe me or not. You know, even if you're talking about people in the same timezone as, for example, Germany, who speak German and Russian and are pro-Israeli, you got still coupla thousands or millions of people. And BTW you got no proof in that on either, cause no CheckUser, so fuck you. And about Mona, no matter what attitudes this Arisboch guy purportedly had towards her, I don't hate her, I just happen to disagree with her on several topic and she thinks that I'm Arisboch or whoever because of that (that's why I was talking about Jonanism). And from what I saw here, people here are tend to get banned only for behavior and being part of an edit war (which was almost ended through 142 until Mona went at iit again) is no grounds for being banned here, either. --Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 12:54, 12 April 2016 (UTC) 12:54, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
    Still ineligible as per RW:CS.--JorisEnter (talk) 13:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
    Oh, stop swinging your wikicop e-penis.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 13:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC) 13:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
    CS are CS.--JorisEnter (talk) 13:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
    Well seeing as he is only about 8 or 9 days before 3 months, the coop might not have ended by then, so it isnt out of the question that he might be eligible by the end of this. Bubba41102The place where you can scream at me 13:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
    Notice that it only appears to get called out as "wikicop e-penis" when rules are cited against Kugelschreiber. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
    Good post!--JorisEnter (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
    Because I learned this wonderful phrase only a short while ago? --Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 16:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC) 16:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
    In actual response to Kugelschreiber, I'm not anyone's minion. Are you really saying "youcant prove im a sockpuppet because you dont have Checkuser, so fuck you"? That vibrates with the aura of a sockpuppeteer's voice. How many Germans interested in Russia are pro-Zionist, hate a user on RationalWiki called Mona, regularly employ the word 'shyster', and decide to create an account on RationalWiki to vote in a coop case involving Mona shortly after another similar user, who said he'd create sockpuppet accounts was permabanned? I'd say very few. In fact, if you pressed me on it, I'd say the number is around 1 or 2. And we know who they are. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 17:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
  4. FFS. Robledo (talk) 19:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
  5. Sorry, but we've become the thought police lately. Leave him be. CorruptUser (talk) 23:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
    Oh absolutely. Only fascists uphold bans on a user who did one of the nastiest and abusive things this site has seen in a long while. It's downright Stalinesque to uphold such a ban!---Mona- (talk) 00:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
    IIRC, Arisboch was apparently a member of another site which doxxed you, but he personally did not. CorruptUser (talk) 02:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
    He requested a doxx that worked. That's pretty nasty, methinks. I don't think the morality of his action is different enough from if he personally doxed her to warrant him not being called a nasty and abusive user. Those terms apply in both cases. Do you agree? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
    Could you show me the request, or is this a state secret sort of thing? CorruptUser (talk) 02:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
    Well ED has the evidence on their page on us, but, basically, he went there asking about a user's dox.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC) 04:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
    There's likely doxing on the relevant forum thread, so linking is probably unkosher. (talk) 03:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
    " but he personally did not." Right. He "just" fed them, encouraged them, reveled in their nastiness. It was sufficiently outrageous to get all four mods in agreement about a perma-ban. But enforcing that ban would be gulags, purges & etc.---Mona- (talk) 03:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
    Stop being a drama queen. According to the posts linked on Encyclopedia Dramatica, he just asked, whether dox on this guy (not you) exists or not. He did not do even that much in the dox thread about you, just calling names.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 12:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC) 12:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
    Meh, Arisboch you cretinous thing, don't worry. So what if this account gets banned. I'll bet you have another already lined up, and if not making a new one won't be hard. Seriously abusive people are always welcome her as long as they make new accounts, so, take cheer!---Mona- (talk) 17:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
    Stop foaming at the mouth and making false accusations. --Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 19:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC) 19:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
    First let me say: Shyster Shyster Shyster Shyster. Please stop the shystering over 9000 you shysters. And then, please let me say why banning a user on such flimsy evidence is highly problematic: If we start banning users not for things they actually did, but for things someone allegedly did who may or may not be the same person, the only way to prove those things becomes doxing. And I think we all agree that doxing is bad. Even if for some reason you decide to not count my vote here (those kind of things should not be done via vote but via consensus anyway, but I digress), please at least leave in my opinion. Maybe, just maybe some residual reason is still around in this headless chicken discussion. Pizzameister (talk) 15:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
    You're not only still ineligible, but also binned.--JorisEnter (talk) 15:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  6. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 20:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  7. Fuck this conspiracy bullshit. More paranoid raving. --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  8. There is not suficient evidence for banning a user who hasn't done anything horrible. KOMF 02:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
    The "Ban" crowd seems to believe that circumstantial evidence - not just any circumstantial evidence, but a bunch of easily refuted points added together - is proof. Now that we all agree to believe in the Abrahamic God, I shall eagerly await the next coop to decide which Abrahamic religion has the most easily refuted arguments. More importantly, it doesn't seem like Kugel has done anything wrong. Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
    Ineligible. Account less than 3 months old. CorruptUser (talk) 01:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
    *cough* *cough* (talk) 22:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
    "Easily refuted points" add up to plausible deniability on Arisboch's side of the net, but the stench of his presence is undeniable. He was banned by unanimous mod action, back when the mods all had their heads screwed on facing front. SmartFeller (talk) 22:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


  • These pissing contests over Israel, and its related pages, are really getting tiresome. Petey Plane (talk) 12:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
    +1--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 12:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC) 12:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
    Yup. We could write an opera about this.--JorisEnter (talk) 13:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
    This factionallized unending conflict driven by perpetual viewing the other side as having caused the latest provocation is the worst, thank god that only happens on the internet. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
    thank god that only happens on the internet.- ikanreed Oh if only idiocy would be restricted to the net! The world would be an garden Eden.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 14:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC) 14:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
    Sadly, that is not the case.--JorisEnter (talk) 15:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
    If that would be the worst case, the world would still be much better off.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 16:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC) 16:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
    I was directly referencing the nature of the Israel-Palestine conflict for the sake of a joke. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Just to again point out, every I-P related page, save one, was here when I arrived at this site last August. At that time, Arisboch and Avenger were enforcing their preferred narrative by chronically reverting anyone whose edits they found unhelpful to the Zionist narrative. I determined to challenge that dynamic and successfully did so, with the result of finding out that theirs is the distinctly minority view. They could never accept that, and still cannot. Hence bullshit such as this site's very own "Syria war" last nite.---Mona- (talk) 17:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Right, and i'm not taking either side (hence the goat). Just pointing out that the subject takes up a disproportionate amount of the effort that goes into improving and expanding RW. It's a little frustrating, no? Petey Plane (talk) 17:35, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
It's extremely frustrating that this asshole can be "perma-banned" for grossly abusive behavior and then allowed right back in to carry on as before over his pet I-P issues. Without him or Avenger that issue remains relatively calm.---Mona- (talk) 17:54, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Using pb's logic i can make this assumption. I speak english. I know stuff about american politics. Therefore i am Andrew Schafly and here to destroy rationalwiki. This is the exact same leap of logic pb and his group are using to incriminate people. Bubba41102The place where you can scream at me 17:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
    No. The logic here is similar to that used by text analysts studying documents of uncertain provenance. For example, scholars of the New Testament have determined who did or did not author certain passages of gospels or epistles, based on styles and reliance on favored terms used a certain way about certain people or things. Same principle applies in court as evidence as to who wrote a thing.---Mona- (talk) 17:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Can I just say[edit]

I think this evidence is hilarious.

  • "Kugelschreiber's first edit was 4 weeks after Arisboch was permabanned. This is because Arisboch decided to create a new account to continue editing."
Oh yes, that's quite compelling. A 4-week (1 month!) gap really seems to fit with how patient people are on the Internet, especially Arisboch -- often noted for his patient and calm demeanor.
  • One of his first edits was in a coop case, just like Pizzameister/Avenger.
Heh. Maybe if it wasn't always in recent changes, we'd have fewer BONs shitting on our coops.
  • Attempted to vote, even though he was ineligible.
Because only Arisboch has violated this rule.
  • How interesting! Guess what else? The coop case was about Mona, who Arisboch hated and tried to dox!
Because Mona's share of recent coop cases is really small.
  • Interesting that a brand new user would have a highly developed opinion about a personal dispute here. It's as if he already had skin in the game!
Because forming opinions (when everyone else is either attacking or defending said person) takes a really long time.
  • Kugelschreiber likes to edit from around 8-9:00 to around 23:00 or so. Arisboch had the same editing hours down to the exact hour. This means they have the same editing patterns.
Actually laughed out loud. Someone tends to edit during waking hours? OMG sockpuppet!!!
  • Kugelschreiber likes to edit articles about Russia and Russian politics, including articles Arisboch has edited before. Arisboch stated he spoke Russian, was interested in Russia, and claimed he hailed from that country. They are the same nationality with the same political interests. Arisboch was a Zionist, pro-Jewish, and pro-Israel, as he stated on his page. Kugelschreiber is also all of these things, as evidenced by his editing pattern that follows.
A Zionist Russian? In real life?
  • Arisboch used the obscure word 'shyster' towards Mona many times
Arisboch, everywhere! Throughout the English corpus!

TBQF, it's possible that Kugel is Aris. But why does all of this shitty evidence have to be presented when the Syria-edit evidence is somewhat compelling? (Yes, it is odd that they removed essentially the same text for essentially the same reason.) FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 03:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

FCP, get real. No one at this site ever used the word "shyster" to me, or as far as I know, used it at all here, except for Arisboch. His sig was almost identical to his new incarnation. His editing interests are the same. His POV the same. And, he told Carpetsmoker he'd make a sock. I assure, you, experts in several related disciplines could analyze the work of both accounts and opine with a high degree of confidence that they are the same person. ---Mona- (talk) 03:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
And, your dismissal of this: "Interesting that a brand new user would have a highly developed opinion about a personal dispute here. It's as if he already had skin in the game!" Is stoopid. A virtually immediate, strong opinion that is just like Arisboch's. FFS, I can't figure out your utter obtuseness on this issue.---Mona- (talk) 03:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Have you ever considered why you make so many enemies Mona? CorruptUser (talk) 03:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Among Zionists? No. I know why. It's that tons of truth and facts thing.---Mona- (talk) 03:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Yet you have to source your info from... less than reputable places. I've met Palestinian nationalists more amiable than you. CorruptUser (talk) 04:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
That's ridiculous. My sources are reliable, or I wouldn't use them. But I know a number of Palestinian nationalists who are, indeed, nice people.---Mona- (talk) 04:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
You mean the sources that can't tell the difference between a gun and talkie-walkie ? NewFrenchHotness (talk) 09:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
It's a lot of little and not-so-little things adding up into something really obvious. Though admittedly those first 3 points listed don't amount to anything. Dunno why Pb even mentions 'em. (talk) 03:47, 13 April 42016 AQD (UTC)
Also, as for the 4-week-gap, I do recall a flow of Avenger(+Aris?)BoNs following the banning/binning of the two accounts in question. BoNs which are now mysteriously absent. Hmm... (talk) 04:08, 13 April 42016 AQD (UTC)
Really, the use of "shyster" is totally an Arisboch thing. He knows the term is widely considered antisemitic -- which is no doubt why it is otherwise not used by anyone else here. When he couldn't get a rise out of me or anyone else by using the word, he'd gratuitously toss in his view that it is not antisemitic. He loves that word, and hopes to do a gotcha if anyone calls him on it.---Mona- (talk) 04:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
"Shyster" being antisemitic is an urban legend, but it is no wonder that you deal in rumors when they suit you, right?--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 12:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC) 12:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
They both used many words that are the same 'the', 'Mona', 'Israel'; the list goes on & on... I also note that they use Subject-Verb-Object word order... Hmmm, how interesting... FCP please institute an edit filter for all uses of the word 'shyster' so that, if the IP address is from Germany, the contributor is auto-banned - problem solved. (talk) 04:32, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Oh yes, intelligent people who read widely, for them to determine authorship to a reasonable degree of certainty is JUST like that!Wikipedia---Mona- (talk) 18:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
A search of the wiki's talkpages shows that the only users to have used 'shyster' repeatedly were ListenerX and Arisboch. And now Kugelschreiber. Hmm... (talk) 04:44, 13 April 42016 AQD (UTC)
The evidence seems pretty clear. Arisboch/Avenger noth also created a lot of IP addresses in January, which, after being promptly banned, moved him to register a new account to continue his editing. Malignant doxxer. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 11:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm quite surprised FCP is taking the side of the accused here. I thought he'd take a middle-of-the-road stance. It's true I quickly threw together the evidence in a hurry, but there's a lot more of it out there. I'd encourage people to add to the evidence list. I hope he realizes that Kugelscheiber is Arisboch. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 11:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

This "evidence" is just a gish gallop. Shall we admit God exists, because all the easily refuted arguments for God add up to a strong circumstantial case? Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Courtrooms rely every day on circumstantial evidence. And before I hear a chorus of "RW isn't a courtroom!" the point is that courts do this because such evidence is reliable. Generally more so than eyewitness testimony. It is literally irrational to reject a strong circumstantial case. ---Mona- (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Except these aren't all tiny, separate arguments. Just use Occam's Razor, which hypothesis is most likely: That Kugel is a sock of Aris, or that there exists a near-exact doppelgänger of Arisboch who completely coincidentally stumbled onto this wiki after the former was banned? (talk) 23:22, 13 April 42016 AQD (UTC)
The evidence is overwhelming that Kugelschreiber is a sockpuppet. The fact that one of his first posts is a vote in a coop case shows that he has a vested interest in the outcome of coop cases here, since he is another user here. The same was true with Pizzameister. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Never heard of the Recent changes page?--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 00:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC) 00:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I think you fail to realize the egregiousness of a random user deciding to join the wiki making one of their first actions on the site to vote in a coop case. It means they probably have an interest in swaying the outcome of the case. Which means they're probably a user that has been forced to leave, or banned. That's pretty suspicious. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Or they're just looking at the Recent changes and wanna edit were the action is.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 00:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC) 00:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm gonna walk up to a bar, see a fight, and pick one side. I have absolutely no relation to anyone in the fight. Not their brother, friend, or associate. Nothing. Just gonna hop in and get myself involved in a confrontation because that's where the action is. When I get beat up, I'll say "I have nothing to do with it, I just saw a fight and thought it's time for this to end." Do you see this conflict of interest here? Do you genuinely believe that these users just decide to vote cuz why not? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Sure, because on the net, a "fight" doesn't give a bloody nose.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 00:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC) 00:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I'd like a bloody nose for once. My life's way too boring. :( (talk) 01:01, 14 April 42016 AQD (UTC)
Do you live in the Northeast? I'm always willing to help out :P. CorruptUser (talk) 01:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I live in the Northeast region of precisely zero continents/islands, sorry. :/ (talk) 01:14, 14 April 42016 AQD (UTC)

I'm sure all this could be a case study for something...[edit]

...i'm glad that all this paranoia and witch hunting is restricted to just a wikiAMassiveGay (talk) 16:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, because disallowing abusive assholes from romping freely at a web site would be the policy of Stalins and Hitlers. Next thing you know, we'd have RW Gulags and RW Death Camps. It would never end until we were all dead in show trials and purges. ---Mona- (talk) 18:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
The strawmaning is strong in that one.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 19:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC) 19:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Ah, "X is strong in that one" is another favorite Arisboch-ism.---Mona- (talk) 20:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Actually, that is from Star Wars, you nerf herder.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 20:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC) 20:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Man, its a shame TK died a few years back. He'd be welcomed with opens arms now. I cannot wait for the mass range blocks and accusations everyone is a supporter of Trotsky --Revolverman (talk) 20:44, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
"Actually, that is from Star Wars" Yes, and in these parts, it is especially and often from Arisboch.---Mona- (talk) 02:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
As he says himself. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
So Star Wars references equals being a sock? Oh my, watching paranoia and witch hunting would be even more fun, if they wouldn't want to BBQ me--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 02:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC) 02:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
That and the litany of other evidences you conveniently ignored. BurgerDominar (talk) 02:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Ugh, I so hate the strawmen. You intentionally ignore my other arguments. "oh, so cuz there's a star wars reference he's guilty?" No. There's that, your use of the word "schister" to Mona, your propensity to be against her in coop cases and other disputes, your similar editing hours, interest in Israel and Russian politics, picking up a new account just a month after you were banned, etc. etc. Also. Who is that guy up there? Right above me? Who do you think it is? Is it anyone you know? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
So a being from approximately the same region and background and disagreeing with you and Mona is enough to be called a sock? My goodness, this is retarded to the max.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 03:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC) 03:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
How many Russian expats now living in Germany are there that also happen to edit RationalWiki? How many of those all have the exact same mannerisms, interests and thoughts as a certain SG-1 fan/Internet troll? One wonders. (talk) 03:15, 14 April 42016 AQD (UTC)
Not many RW users come from Germany. Not many of them walk in disliking a certain user. The odds are so low I'd say it is a sock. That's why I'm prosecuting the case, otherwise I wouldn't be. I would not be doing this if I didn't have massive confidence you are a sockpuppet. Do you understand that? Or are you just putting on a show to influence people's opinions? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Implying I have a personal dislike for Mona, which is a lie. I just happen to disagree with her on several issues, don't take kindly to her baseless (and, by proxy, your) accusations and I honestly couldn't give a shit about your so-called "massive confidence".--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 03:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC) 03:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
@Pbfreespace3: If this nationality question is relevant, do you happen to have the statistics for German users, expats or otherwise? By the way, my first edit, but I've been hovering for a long time. Glad to meet you all. Hawthorne (talk) 16:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

What is and is not doxing?[edit]

I think it is high time we define what is doxing, as there are right now accusations of doxes flying around and some users are accused of being someone else through "evidence gathering" which is very close to doxing, e.g. arguing with the presumed physical location of users. I think some even brought up the name of some users or former users, even though those people have not made it public. However, Rationalwiki started out (and still gets lauded for it on other sites like TV Tropes) as a pretty elaborate doxing and bitching operation against Conservapedia. Back in the day, we took a whole lot of effort to find out that "TheKnife" had in fact shelled his mortal coil and gone on to a higher plane of dead-ness. Now you can argue semantics and whether doxing a dead person is really all that bad, but some users (and I will purposefully not name names) do appear to be throwing rocks from inside a glass house here. We could of course declare all doxes that happened prior to a certain date x to be forgiven and forgotten and start with a blank slate for everybody. But even if we do this, we should be very clear which types of behavior will be acceptable going forward and which won't. The current muddled rules lead to this kind of witch hunt at every other turn. And quite frankly I am sick and tired of all the shouting and banning and binning and I would much rather have healthy debates over Bernie Sanders or sugar than this current decapitated bird occurrence. Pizzameister (talk) 18:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

"I am sick and tired of all the shouting and banning and binning" Toddlers don't like time outs, either.---Mona- (talk) 18:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Mona: That is a personal insult and is not constructive. Please stop. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 20:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Oh, it's quite constructive. Pointed, apropos, and constructive. But since you are an authority figure here -- albeit one who eschews using authority when it actually would be constructive -- I have no choice but to hop-to and obey this admonition. For there is no doubt that my comment is an egregious piece of misbehavior at a site where the most repugnant behavior is "punished" by making the miscreant(s) change their user name. ---Mona- (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Mona, your response did nothing to explain why Pizza's point is right or wrong. It's not constructive. Stop whining, please. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 20:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
To be fair, I thought Mona's response was entirely reasonable given Pizza's post was a fatuous waste of space - David Gerard (talk) 20:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
(e/c)FCP, I have no intention of explaining anything serious to Avenger. That well ran dry a long, long time ago. He is immune to reason; any sentient being with a few weeks experience of him knows that. (That this is widely understood was made apparent recently in the Saloon.) And how very amusing that you would apply the term "whining" to me in the context of my disdain for Avenger's ceaseless, well, whining.---Mona- (talk) 20:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Great! If you don't think they can be reasoned with, don't say anything. The coop doesn't need more anger. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 20:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it; I know it. As does any sensible person who has been at this wiki for no more than a few months. Let's just ban him now, let him set up what would be at least his third account, and have this dance again in short order. That's how we do things at this site, where productive use of time is so esteemed.---Mona- (talk) 23:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
I'll concur with the above just because. We need to wrap this thing up quickly to avoid further damage. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 20:44, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Now now guys, people are free to speak their mind on this wiki. Don't be silencing the voices of dissent now. (talk) 21:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

This is going in circles[edit]

Gonna close soon with the ban being in place per the vicious tyranny of the mob. Same for next username he uses too - David Gerard (talk) 20:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

But remember, David. Per RW:CS: "Both policy votes and penalty votes must last between seven and fourteen days." You certainly wouldn't want to "pull major policy changes" with "little discussion", would you? Or perhaps, it's sometimes reasonable to not discuss every damn thing beforehand? FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 20:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Wait the 48 hours at least. It's not a landslide vote. StickySock (talk) 20:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Given you recently cooped someone then blocked them personally over a total cycle of less than a day, you're not overwhelmingly supplied with legs to stand on here - David Gerard (talk) 20:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Is there a way to resolve this amiably between you two? David is one of the staff and Fuzzy is the "best" tech, and the site would suck with one of you gone. StickySock (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Fuzzy is the "best" tech? Pippa (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
[EC] Who? Castaigne? On a vote that was 13:5, and getting more slanted, where Castaigne wasn't even blocked, but merely desysopped and put on "probation" (which only require a 1/2 majority [as opposed to this one, which has a mere 7/13 majority when it needs 2/3])? Right. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 20:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Fuzzy is the most active and prolific tech, I'll put it that way. Sadly I've lost a little respect for his judgement after this coop case. He's trying to be way too much of a devil's advocate here, swinging him onto Arisboch's side. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 20:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
I lost respect for FCP when he refused to do anything meaningful in the Sorte Slyngel matter. I had to actually TELL HIM what to do and say, which he didn't end up doing anyway. He practically apologized to the guy for having to tell him to stop being a dick. He clearly hates any proper sanctioning of miscreants. Whether it's timidity or some weird principle, I don't know. But it renders him nearly useless in terms of modding.---Mona- (talk) 23:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Other wikis are available. This site clearly doesn't deserve your "skill set". Robledo (talk) 23:44, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Probably so. But I've invested enough that I feel like sticking around a bit. At least for a bit more.---Mona- (talk) 23:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Banana.gif ^^^ SRS BSNS ^^^ Banana.gif Robledo (talk) 00:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
If you get to do it, so does every other boss. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
If you're referring to FCP as a "boss", may I correct you. There is no way in which a Moderator or a Tech is a boss. This is a mobocracy & the moderators are elected to moderate - just that. Pippa (talk) 23:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Castaigne, every poor man invents his own excuses for his mistakes. One must always look back to look forward. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Arisboch's banning[edit]

I think we have to ask ourselves whether it was just to ban Arisboch for doxing rather than being a disruptive asshole. Was it just that he was banned w/o a vote nad by a secret mod account that was not approved by the community?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC) 00:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh please not more αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 01:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
On this I agree with FCP. Done and done. It was done that way for a reason with all four mods agreeing. The last thing this wiki should want is to revisit the stressful crap of last December which cost us a mod (who feared the threats of doxing) and several editors. Public discussion was feeding the doxers whom Arisboch was giving encouragement, aid and comfort. ---Mona- (talk) 02:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree as well, even though I have no stake in this particular game. BurgerDominar (talk) 02:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Based on what I've read, I think FCP is right here. We need to wind this thing down and tone down the stirring. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Well it is quite fun to stir the pot, but yeah this case already has enough JAQing off. I just thought I should ask since several users have brought up Aris's blocking.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC) 03:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
1+ to FCP. No más, no más! Can this all please be concluded anytime soon so that we may get back to editing and being useful? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

It is clear to me that this Arisboch person is a hero and should be unbanned immediately. A mysterious stranger (talk) 13:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

It is clear to everyone else that you are Arisboch. Now somebody archive this soap opera. Flannan Isle (talk) 13:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Sounds like the primary crime Arisboch is guilty of is being Arisboch, which is also his punishment. If only he would stop inflicting that on everyone else. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

What exactly was Arisboch banned for? I don't recall any debate on the subject taking place and I do not recall ever seeing any evidence. Pizzameister (talk) 20:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Email him and ask him. But then I'm sure you've already thoroughly had that discussion.---Mona- (talk) 20:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Arisboch was banned for doxxing. Got it, Pizzameister? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Doxing whom when and where? Details, I need details. By the way, why do you spell it with two x? Xtreme Koll Lettaz are so 90ies. And trust me, I know. Pizzameister (talk) 00:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
This comes from an anti-Rationalwiki article, but I find the summary to be pretty good once the attacks are sanitized.
On December 20, 2015, RationalWiki user "Arisboch" joined Kiwi Farms as "systemlord_baal" (a Stargate SG-1 reference) and asked "yes or no" questions ("Does anyone know?" / "[Do] you know anything about it?") about the rumor about Queex being doxed "out of of idle curiosity". On December 22nd, Gooniepunk created "Category:Anti-Gamergate_slate" and Gooniepunk added it to his userpage. Arisboch, Mona, and others began arguing on the category's talk page and Mona accused Arisboch of not showing enough compassion on Kiwi Farms. Arisboch responded negatively. Late on the next day, Mona Emailed Gooniepunk, presumably about Arisboch's presence on Kiwi Farms. Within an hour of that Email being sent, the "SecretAgentoftheMods" account was created and granted advanced moderator privileges, including the ability to suppress content and logs. Gooniepunk's NoiseBot then suppressed all logs related to the creation of the account and who granted it advanced moderator privileges. The account's first action was to block Arisboch for alleged "off-site doxxing and harassment". By "off-site doxxing and harassment", they mean the request for dox he asked for at Kiwi Farms.
So there you go. The relevant links are present on the page, but those with power here don't want them directly posted here (as that would contribute to the doxxing). What Arisboch did on Kiwifarms would be the equivalent of asking someone on a doxxing forum if your personal information was out there, then finding it. But you're Avenger, you should know all this already. In which case you're just trolling to prolong the argument and get more people on your side, even though you are siding with someone who knowingly broke the rules here. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
On the other hand, we didn't block you for trying to dox me. (talk) 00:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, I did not know anything about any of this, and quite frankly, I think it is a very bad justification for banning someone. Especially in the way it happened, without a coop or even someone personally taking responsibility. For all we know, Arisboch just wanted to join and maintain some sort of plausible deniability with regards to being "one of us", which made have exposed him to a negative reaction of those people for all we know. And given the behavior of some of the users of this wiki recently (again, I won't name names), I find it highly doubtful what happened. But anyway, maybe what has come to pass is past and we can move on. Maybe part of that moving on could be a general amnesty of all the things that happened. Lately I feel way too many old grudges are held and dug up at the worst of times. Let's just put this late unpleasantness behind us and build a transcontinental railroad to tie the nation together. Pizzameister (talk) 01:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Are you saying doxxing should not be a bannable offense? What the fuck is wrong with you!?!? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 11:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Arisboch didn't dox anyone, though (according to the Kiwi Farms posts linked in the Encyclopedia Dramatica article, he just asked whether such stuff existed and vented steam about Mona, nothing else).--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 14:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC) 14:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Shouldn't you be banned then pb, you incompetent Fuck? (talk) 13:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Hey. Keep it constructive. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 14:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Apologies I was about 100 beers deep at that stage last night. Point is still valid. (talk) 01:55, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
No. I did not request a dox. Arisboch did. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
He didn't.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 20:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC) 20:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Did Arisboch dox anybody? Did Mona? Did Pbfreespace3? Did any of them threaten to do so? Which acts did or did not happen and which of them are offenses worthy of a ban? Pizzameister (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

According to the Kiwi Farms posts linked in the Encyclopedia Dramatica article about Rationalwiki he did ask, whether dox on some user (I forgot his name, but it was not Mona, IIRC) exists (a yes-or-no question). He then proceeded to blow off steam in a thread about Mona, but didn't dox her.
Pbfreespace3 did apparently threaten someone to dox someone. He claims, that it was just a lie to get a BoN to disappear and stop with what he claimed to be disruptive edits.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 15:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC) 15:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
@Kugel Arisboch may not have wanted to dox, but he should've know that asking if someone had been doxed on the forum where their dox is was going to give them the impression that you wanted to see it or help to further dox other users. You don't ask someone if they sell marijuana and then expect them not to show you. So it sucks that you couldn't defend yourself, but you shouldn't have been so dumb. Also, that wasn't your first time fighting with Mona.

@Pizza Dude, handwaving Arisboch's mistakes won't help you. You have a better record here than Arisboch so it is best to just let him argue by himself.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 16:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC) 16:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

That comparison is funny, since buying MJ is a victimless crime.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 16:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC) 16:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Well you are buying from a cartel who may use slave labor (probably using children), human trafficking, kidnapping, and murder in order to obtain their product. Bribery is a victimless crime, but a crime nonetheless.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC) 17:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Just like anyone buying budget clothing or much of the stuff Made in China, but a customer never can be 100% be sure and neither is s/he culpable.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 17:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC) 17:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Which means it isn't a victimless crime. My point still stands, though, that bribery is vacitimless, but should be punished.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC) 17:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Oh my god, another War on Drugs crank. I though, that this kinda attitude was rare on the RW.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 17:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC) 17:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
How does that make me a crank? If anything that shows that black markets create further crimes which is why you should legalize all drugs.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC) 17:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Amazing that you could misinterpret his stance on the War on Drugs based on a statement that buying marijuana from a cartel is tacitly supporting their criminal behavior. Alcohol and Cigarettes are also not victimless, yet they are legal as can be. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 20:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
But this is all beside the point. Arisboch solicited a dox. That's a bannable offense. Kugelschreiber is a sockpuppet of Arisboch, and Kugelschreiber should be banned. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 20:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
He didn't.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 20:08, 16 April 2016 (UTC) 20:08, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Let me go to Kiwifarms and post "Hey, does anyone know the realname of Kugelschreiber?". Does that count as soliciting a dox? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 21:03, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Not quite sure if it counts as soliciting, if it was already posted in the thread.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 21:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC) 21:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Regardless of whether is was already posted on the page, you didn't know that. Someone else even told you that it was back a page, and you looked and found it. That's soliciting, and it got you banned. I find it blackly funny that you critizice Mona for shystering and then pull the most massive fucking shyster when you dox someone, but not quite so it doesn't count so I shouldn't be banned, oh please don't ban me!!. Fucking ridiculous that you'd be willing to skirt such a boundary, knowing your activity was wrong: "Say, does it even count as dox, if you publish your own personal information connected to your nickname online?" When you were looking, you knew what you were doing was wrong, but you searched for a legal loophole to get around it in the event you were found out. That's sketchy behavior if there ever was such a thing.
And of course, here you still are, referring to Arisboch as "him" and not "me". I'd watch out, you could get multiple personality disorder from that. Here you are, still dodging, still hoping that there's a chance you won't be banned again and allowed to continue to edit. That hope is what's holding you on and keeping you posting, Arisboch. An ajar door that closes every single time you edit. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 22:20, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
You're such a drama queen complete with personal dictionary and freely movable goal posts (Mona or whoever claimed, that this Aris guy doxed someone. You backpedaled and now claim, that he "solicited" it, which in your book is also asking about the existence of dox about person x).--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 22:33, 16 April 2016 (UTC) 22:33, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
How did I move goal posts? I never claimed you directly doxxed anyone and released the information yourself. I said you were banned for doxxing. There's a difference. Read the page. If you solicit information off of the site, that's a bannable offense. Nice try, tough guy. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 22:55, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Also, do you realize that the crux of your argument rests on whether or not requesting offsite personal information about an onsite user counts as doxxing if the name was posted publicly beforehand? That's one pretty weak leg to stand on, Arisboch. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:00, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
According to the block log, Arisboch was blocked on 27 December 2015, but off-site behavior as a blocking reason was added on 6 January 2016, so this looks too much like an adjustment ex post facto to justify the block.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 23:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC) 23:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Shyster. That was understood before that clarification to the rule was put on the page. Ask any moderator, and they'll tell you it was understood. I know well, as it's been discussed. It damn bloody well justifies the block. IF your case is to be believed, then all 3 moderators that blocked you were all acting illegally. A unanimous moderator decision was somehow unfounded because the blocking policy didn't clarify exactly what doxxing was. I guaran-freaking-tee that you checked this policy beforehand to make sure you would be able to get out of a ban. If you think you can get out of it this easily, Mr. B.B., you're mistaken. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
What moderator? The one who saw it necessary to pull off all this cloak-and-dagger crap with a shared mod account (who ended up being misused. No accountability causes that) just to block someone? Can you prove it, that it was "understood" that way before? By whom? How? Did precedents exist? And why would that even be relevant (this idle speculation about what some random people supposedly did is pointless and even if they would've done that (no way to prove that), it'd be completely irrelevant)? --Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 23:30, 16 April 2016 (UTC) 23:30, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────What makes this so interesting is that instead of arguing whether or not mr Ballpoint here is in fact Arisboch, we are now arguing if Aris's banning was justified - something which should be completely unnecessary if Kugel were in fact not Arisboch.--JorisEnter (talk) 23:32, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Good post! (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Because this is the first Coop case ever to be derailed into fuck know how much off topic prattle, right?--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 23:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC) 23:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
"Can you prove it, that it was "understood" that way before? By whom? How? Did precedents exist?" Arisboch, if you are actually interested in understanding why you were blocked, you should email the moderators in question and talk to them about it. Ask them why what you did constitutes doxxing, and why the mods reached the decision they did. They will all be happy to talk to you and tell you why they did what they did. The mods knew there was no precedent, and that doing this would set a new precedent that would end up being used to block other accounts. The point, Mr. BB, is that the mods wrote down an unwritten rule by agreeing unanimously to block you. They agreed that asking for someone's name on a website constitutes doxxing under the RW policy, and that it is a bannable offense. If you don't like that, tough. You did it, and it can never be undone. You should move on. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
So much for mobocracy, that's why they needed to set up this official moderator sock account, because nobody wanted to be held accountable, if the mob actually protested against this bullshit (block people and change the blocking rules to cover your ass).--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 23:51, 16 April 2016 (UTC) 23:51, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Actually, the quite obvious reason for that account was because the mods feared being doxxed, cyberstalked, threatened etc. as revenge for the permaban. Not an unreasonable fear, as RNS had already found himself the target of an online harassment campaign. (talk) 00:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Your earlier argument, and I quote: "this looks too much like an adjustment ex post facto to justify the block.", is EXACTLY what Arisboch himself said on Kiwifarms. He said "They first permabanned me and then changed the rules to make the ban kosher". I'm not going to link the quote, but it's pretty easily found by a Google search. He said this. He's making the exact same argument you're making now. What a coincidence! You're both defending Arisboch from being banned for doxxing because the precise rule in question existed after the ban was emplaced! Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Who is RNS?--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 00:06, 17 April 2016 (UTC) 00:06, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Reckless Noise Symphony, also known as Gooniepunk. The same dude as you were asking dox about if I recall correctly. (talk) 00:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Queex, dude. But anyway. I think the evidence is clearer and clearer every day that Kugelschreiber is Arisboch. The KWF conversation proves it beyond much of a doubt. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Ah, right, Queex was also being targeted. (talk) 00:20, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Proof? Is that with or without the people you trying to recruit to vote here?--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 00:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC) 00:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm asking community members to participate in the case. There are people with strong opinions who haven't voted yet that should. If they did, you'd be gone here. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
The proof is self-evident and all over the place. As the existence of young Earth creationism proves, though, that doesn't mean people can't ignore it regardless. (talk) 00:38, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
And as Aeonian correctly noticed below, this is all just a pretext resp. trumped up charge to ban people who disagree with your patroness, I did nothing bannable, after all.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 00:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC) 00:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Note that Kugelschreiber isn't refuting any of my points. If you were a innocent who got falsely accused of being a sockpuppet of someone else, you'd try to address and refute your accuser's points, right? I know I would. But Kugelschreiber isn't doing that. Instead, he went to my contributions page, found a post I made on someone else's talk page that asked a person to vote in this case, went back to the coop page, and wrote a post accusing me of recruiting people to vote (which apparently is a bad thing according to him). Is that what a falsely accused person would do? Accuse the other side of wrong action rather than address the points raised here? No. That's what a correctly accused person would do: try to shift the conversation away from the important evidence, and towards accusing the other side of wrongdoing. Classic deflection. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:42, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Also, classic Arisboch-tactic. (talk) 00:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
So using the Recent changes page is something only this Aris fella does? --Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 00:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC) 00:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

^What have I done?!--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC) 00:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

You've unleashed the seven plagues! ;) (talk) 00:49, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Just seven? Damn amateur.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 00:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC) 00:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Clearly, I must repent. For this I will take a hundred lashings.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC) 01:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Hundern and ten, infidel!--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 01:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC) 01:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Again, here we are with the deflection away from the actual issues at hand. Classic tactic. Kugelschreiber, how do you explain that you have exactly the same argument as Arisboch when it comes to why Arisboch shouldn't have been blocked? Don't you think it's some coincidence you and Arisboch have exactly the same opinion regarding Rationalwiki Block policy and why Arisboch's block was wrong? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:33, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I think Arisboch did nichts wrong und you shysters should never have banned him, it's worse than what Palestine's doing in Israel. Champion (talk) 12:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Troll--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 12:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC) 12:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

More and more topic derailment. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

It. Is. Arisboch. The evidence is overwhelming. He's doing shit right now at the Antisemitism article, throwing in huge blocks of unsourced text. Arisboch was famous for insisting he "didn't do sourcing." So, this incarnation was called on that lack of sourcing by several of us, and then went and littered his text with WP notes. That's poor, very poor. The behavior of one who "doesn't do sourcing." (Or can't.)

But what difference does it make? Ban this version of Arisboch, and he'll just be right back, because this site beclowns itself by letting perma-banned and -binned users make new accounts and carry on. So, this whole drama-fest is pointless. But it will continue endlessly as these cretins make new accounts and we have coop after coop after coop of the same user. People here seem to crave insanity.

Finally, we shouldn't be reverting comments that are simply nasty or stupid. They are part of the record here and should stand as such.---Mona- (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Archive this?[edit]

The Kugel case stands at about 50% for and 50% against. It does not meet the 2/3 threshold and doesn't appear likely to. At 9:8, it would require fully 7 additional for votes and 0 against votes to achieve a two-thirds majority (16/24).

The Pb and Joris cases both overwhelmingly favor their remopping (or rather, lack of demopping).

Can this be archived? The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 13:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

The Pb and Joris cases can be closed, though I'd leave the Kugel one open for a bit longer. There's always the possibility someone decides to change their vote, in which case only 3 more voters would be required to get the 2/3 result. (talk) 14:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
1+. What is obvious is that the Joris and Pb cases may be closed and archived with their instant re-mopping. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
As far as I know Pb still has his mop. Leave the Kugel case open for now - who knows what will happen.--JorisEnter (talk) 16:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
You were insisting on 7 days just above. Leave for a while - David Gerard (talk) 18:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
It totally does not matter. Even if we banned this incarnation he'd be back with a new one in short order, and no one would be allowed to do anything about it, notwithstanding the "ban evasion" option in the block drop-down menu.---Mona- (talk) 20:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I have my mop just fine. I'd say leave the case open for the full 7 days. The drama seems to have died down. Let's follow policy. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:05, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Why wasn't this kept in the Israel/Palestine talk pages?[edit]

After reading this discussion, it seems utterly clear to me that this whole thing is an off shoot of certain edit disputes by certain users (who were supposed to have LANCB'd anyway) over the Israel/Palestine pages. Why wasn't the whole mess contained on those pages in the first place? Do we not have containment protocols to stop the Flood? Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

After reading your post, it seems utterly clear to me that you've read jack shit of this discussion. >.> (talk) 22:05, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
The vocal pro and con editors are...surprise! The same pro and con editors in the Israel edit wars. Lord Aeonian (talk) 02:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Sure, the pro-ban side is mostly people that don't like Arisboch and much of the con-ban side are people that dislike Mona and/or Pbfree. People vote for petty reasons, what a revelation. (talk) 03:10, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

This has been going on for 5 fucking days now...[edit]

Jesus christ, get a grip for fucks sake. That is all. Acei9 03:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Well a coop case is supposed to last 7 days unless there is an overwhelming decision or it is ruled frivolous.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:44, 17 April 2016 (UTC) 03:44, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
7 days? What a monumental waste of energy. Acei9 03:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Well that is apparently the policy and I doubt those involved will keep quite for the remaining time.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC) 03:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

It isn't a waste of energy. Think of it in economic terms - people are getting a reward from all the drama. The people here seem to feed on it. Obviously, it has economic value to them, so they invest time into it. Lord Aeonian (talk) 04:10, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I thought it was well-known that contentiousness and petty conflict are the whole foundation of the wiki. Oh well. (talk) 04:42, 17 April 42016 AQD (UTC)
Where does it say coop cases are 7 days long? Acei9 04:49, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Rationalwiki:Community Standards#Common guidelines: "Both policy votes and penalty votes must last between seven and fourteen days." Feel free to look up who put that there and raise hell on their talkpage. (talk) 05:05, 17 April 42016 AQD (UTC)
Unfortunately, the person whodunnit ain't around no more. Ace is right though. The RC page is constantly clogged up with mindless drivel from morons quibbling about nothing. rpeh •TCE 12:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. Seven days is ridiculous. There may be times when it should last that long and the community expresses that desire, but not as default.---Mona- (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
I think this case should go on as long as possible. OK, that's an exaggeration, but I think this isn't over yet. Just look at the exchange with Kugelschreiber I had yesterday: it proved more than ever that he was Arisboch. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 17:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Of course, you need more time to recruit some random people into your crusade / jihad against me, right?--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 17:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC) 17:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Are you going to continue to ignore what I said about your posts on Kiwifarms? Arisboch said he'd create sockpuppets. He said his ban was unjustified due to an ex post facto rule. His arguments and behavior exactly mirror yours. You're just going to deflect and ignore rather than discuss the actual points I raised? OR will you address my arguments? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
It seems to me that "address[ing] your arguments" would mean Kugel saying he is Aris, making said arguments rhetorical.
Nevertheless, let's look at what you're talking about:
...The fact that both Kugelschreiber and Arisboch would use the same argument of why Arisboch's ban was unjustified is a pretty good giveaway that they are the same person.
I've debated Muslims and Christ-worshipers, both of them use the same arguments, such as the kalaam. Does them make them the same? Lord Aeonian (talk) 19:33, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
This is different from some religious debate. This isn't about some argument for god that both Muslims and Christians use. This is an argument for why the ban of a single user is unjustified, and the arguments of both users (who have already been shown to have very similar editing patterns, biases, and behaviors) are exactly the same. That's more than a coincidence. They are the same person. When Arisboch was banned, he went to Kiwifarms, and among other things, said that his ban was unjustified because the rule used to ban him was added after he was banned. And months later, here we have Kugelschreiber saying "this looks too much like an adjustment ex post facto to justify the block". Why would they use exactly the same argument? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Very well, it seems Kugel is indeed Aris. Perhaps my main concern is that I haven't seen Kugel doing anything ban-worthy, which is why the "returning sock of banned user" clause has been brought up in the first place. If Kugel's behavior was harmful, wouldn't that stand on its own? Lord Aeonian (talk) 19:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Sure, and it does. He has edit warred multiple times, inserted vast amounts of information without sources, personally insulted other users against the Guidelines: "you got no proof in that on either, cause no CheckUser, so fuck you", "Stop being a drama queen", "Stop foaming at the mouth and making false accusations". All of this adds up to something that, at the very least, puts you in the vandal bin, if not gets you a ban. But that's all basically irrelevant if you've accepted my argument: the fact that he is a sock of someone who has participated in doxxing means he should be banned same as they were. This is still the same person we're talking about, so why should we change our standards based on if he calls himself Jones or Erickson? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 20:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, the doxxing argument is apparently contested. Also, if insulting others a bannable offense, why isn't a user like Castainge2 banned by now? It just seems hard to keep track of exactly what the rules are. Nevertheless, I cede your point like Kugel is Aris and everything that comes with it. Lord Aeonian (talk) 20:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
The doxxing argument would be contested if it were up to the community to decide whether or not asking if someone has been doxxed on KIWIFARMS counts as soliciting off-site information. But it's not. That's the job of moderators. If I've asked for a dox, the mods can ban me *snap* like that. They don't need to ask the community whether it's OK first. In your case, if you believe the ban of Arisboch was unjustified, you should put it to the coop in a new case to see what people think. Otherwise, we're going to act as if he's guilty of the offense based on the moderators' unanimous decision, and operate based off that assumption. So, now, assuming the mods are right, and you agree Kugelschreiber is Arisboch, then your name should be in the "yes" category for ban. If he's Arisboch, and if what Arisboch did was viewed by all moderators as doxxing, then he should be permabanned. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 20:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

"moderators' unanimous decision" That should stand. We ought not litigate the reasons the mods unusually acted then -- all of them, in unusual agreement. Numerous editors were the objects of vicious doxing and promotion of contacting their family members -- with contact information published -- by cretins at another site (where Arisboch was participating with them in a most friendly fashion) who were fueled by every word posted here. To discuss it here, simply fed their attacks on editors -- real life, harmful attacks. We had a mod quit due to their doxing threats. Let it be.---Mona- (talk) 21:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

You do realize that a moderator's decision does not have any more power than any other sysop, right? We are an anarcho-communist hive of scum and villainy, and moderators are basically police with extra abilities but equal in power. CorruptUser (talk) 21:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
^This. Acei9 21:06, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
The mods all agreed. The decision was made for all the strong and compelling reasons I cited. The mods do have more authority; I know I (peevishly) stop doing whatever when a mod says I have to.---Mona- (talk) 21:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Appeal to authority much? It doesn't matter what the mods agreed. They are not in control more than any other sysop. CorruptUser (talk) 21:38, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
^This. Again. Acei9 21:39, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

"I know I (peevishly) stop doing whatever when a mod says I have to." - Mona

Mona I'm so hot right now Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:58, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


Can we archive this now? The drama isn't dieing down. The vote isn't changing. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 22:17, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, archive it. If it lasts any longer, Kugel will be old enough to vote and die for his country further reduce the odds of being banned. CorruptUser (talk) 22:20, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
But it hasn't been 7 days yet! *sob* (talk) 22:31, 17 April 42016 AQD (UTC)