RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive47

Desysop -Mona-

For edit warring & poor behavior. Examples from the past few days:

• Antisemitism (against CorruptUser and Kugelschreiber and Pbfreespace3): [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] and [9][10][11] and [12][13]
• On Bernie Sanders (against Sandflapjack, also desysaut'ed): [14][15][16][17][18] and [19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28]
• On Hillary Clinton (against Sandflapjack, also desysaut'ed): [29][30] and [31][32] and [33][34].
• Perhaps most damning: -Mona- made a post on another user's talkpage, entitled "You will be sorry". Then stated: "When the protection lifts (you had no business doing that), I'll have ready a heavily sourced section on the absurdity of Zionists' preferred definition of antisemtism. You and Arisboch should have learned to compromise with me on these issues. All I'll do is add a good deal more, well-sourced text that you will deeply dislike, but which is relevant and and necessary to debunk your preferred "test.""

  This shows an utter inability to compromise. There was already a section on the talkpage about said test of antisemitism -- giving -Mona- ample opportunity to compromise. Yet instead they decided to antagonise other users and essentially threaten them with what they think the page should look like. This non-cooperative view is not how a wiki page is written. Editing should not be seen as a war -- or else it will lead to edit wars.

It does take two to tango -- but Mona has warred with four people. Even discounting SFJ, ample bad behavior remains.

This is in no way a support or indictment of Mona's views -- merely her behavior.

And I apologize for another coop -- but from CorruptUser's talkpage, it's clear that this behavior is notably bad. To try and contain the drama, if this vote isn't conclusive by tomorrow, I'm archiving it. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 23:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Then FCP, surely you can cite to the RW rule that renders my comments "notably bad." Because I stand by them. ---Mona- (talk) 23:59, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Mona has also abused her psyop powers Sandflapjack (talk) 00:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Psyop? What is this place, the CIA? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

against CorruptUser and Kugelschreiber and Pbfreespace3 That's also false. I didn't revert Pb3. Moreover, we are in the process of talk page discussions on the Antismetism definition. I have not yet called for a vote. I first rejected an unsourced definition, and then a definition to a deeply partisan source that was not negotiated. Things like that happens every day here. Why not sanction Arisboch or CU as well? AS for my so-called edit warring with SandFlpJack, puh-leeeze. The guy flatly refused to go to the talk page until he was blocked, and was eventually taken to the coop. I did nothing wrong with that problem user, who reverted Serroco, and wouldn't abide my and another user's disagreement.---Mona- (talk) 01:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

1. Im not a guy. 2. I went to the talk page and you ignored my arguement. 3. eat shit. 4. eat more shit. Sandflapjack (talk) 01:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I call my gal pals "guy" as well. "Come on you guys," is a common idiomatic saying. But nice try at the faux outrage. ---Mona- (talk) 02:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Saying "Well now. That's an angry rant to be sure. But it's not persuasive support of your edits. Could you perhaps try a reasoned and calm analysis of what you find wrong in the passage?" after I said what needed to be fucking said is dodging it, dont try and act like I didnt try and reason with you. You continuously kept dodging it telling me my tone was wrong. Also fuck you i'm trans, dont call me guy period you fuck. Sandflapjack (talk) 03:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Don't care if you're trans. Trans have assholes (literally and figuratively), like every other demographic.---Mona- (talk) 03:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm talking about calling me a man even though im not you transphobic fuck Sandflapjack (talk) 03:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

That brings back some nice memories... :) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 02:01, 18 April 42016 AQD (UTC)

Discussion

Jesus on a crutch

This is ridiculous. I have always gone to the talk page when there's an edit war, except for Arisboch, and even then sometimes. My comment on CorruptUser's talk page was about my ability to add text and documentation that balances, if not debunks, the invalid definition he and Arisboch want to include on the talk Antisemitism page. How is it misbehavior to simply assert what is so: I have the ability to debunk, with sources, that definition? That's not a vow to edit war. It's a statement that I can do as I have long done -- counter with facts. I had others "warring" with me on three pages recently, and we worked it out on two, because I asked for compromise, and we generally reached it.

But at the end of the day, I don't care. I can make a gazillion new accounts. In fact, I can recruit many people holding my viewpoint to inundate this place to make sure I always win (I have not done that, but I am able to). Not a thing you can do about it because of your asinine policies. I've never done anything like that before, but since it's been made clear that it doesn't violate any rules, and that is how the party goes on here, I could give it a try. Sanctioning me for editing properly, when banned, binned and other problem users edit war with me is par for the course around here. I simply do not respect any procedures here. At all.---Mona- (talk) 23:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

You have done that. CorruptUser (talk) 23:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Nope. He was a Gator, and was disappointed I didn't agree with him. If I recruit folks CU, oh my, you will know it. None will be Gators.---Mona- (talk) 23:37, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Mona, that's flatly ridiculous. Debunking doesn't require going to a user talkpage, ever. It doesn't require a pseudothreat. It doesn't require a tech to lock the page you're talking about. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 23:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "pseudothreat." He protected the page, for no sound reason. You, FCP, are making up bullshit infractions.---Mona- (talk) 23:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

You were blatantly editwarring. I protected it for such a short time as a message of sorts. Because excessively protecting pages for poor reasons is something you have done fairly frequently. (also, wasn't aware that it was a tech power to make a page moderator protected, damn this power :'() CorruptUser (talk) 23:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Nope. In many months I've done it exactly once. For SandalFlapJack. You didn't defend your position on the tlak page; simply asserted "a source" and said that was it. That's bad faith discussion. But this is all bullshit. It will come down to how many people don't like me. "Standards" here are from the Twilight Zone. Moreover, if you don't get rid of me, I will continue to edit that definition in a manner that is balanced and sound, and a majority will, if not entirety agree with me, not agree with you. That's my crime, establishing a majority against your Zionist enthusiasms. ---Mona- (talk) 23:42, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Mona. Non-problem users don't threaten to go off and make sockpuppets; non-problem users don't threaten to "recruit many people" to "inundate" RW. You exhibit textbook problem user behavior.

And stop this bullshit Zionism nonsense. I have no idea what side you or Arisboch or whatshisface take or took on Israel. All I want is you to stop making other people's RW time shitty. FuzzyCatPotato of the Buffoon-like Sticks (talk/stalk) 23:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Now, now FCP YOU have told me there is nothing wrong with banned user making socks! You insisted on it. As have others. (And Arisboch vowed he'd makes socks.) So how can saying I might do that be a prohibited threat? Indeed, where in the rules does it say I can't just recruit allies here to "win?" Are you suggesting, FCP, that a behavior can be unreasonable that the rules of this wiki do not prohibit?!---Mona- (talk) 23:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

For edit warring and poor behavior

That's what I am charged with. I ask for a citation to the specific rules of this site for the specific "poor behavior" I allegedly committed that is usually sanctioned. That is, match the law to the facts you can prove.---Mona- (talk) 23:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

RW:B: "Malicious editing occurs when somebody wants to harm RationalWiki. Because it does not contribute to constructive dialogue, and merely causes disorder, malicious editing is a blockable offense."

I'm not sure if you want to harm RW -- but you're sure as hell causing disorder and not contributing to constructive dialogue. There's a reason why the Aardvark guy keeps getting banned - they add nothing, only disorder and drama. And so does edit warring -- and pursuing people onto their talkpages -- and threatening what amounts to an ideological invasion.

Furthermore, how you think that statements along the line of "you'll be sorry" don't constitute at least low-level harassment is beyond me. Castaigne was successfully cooped for the same behavior, plus use of slurs. 00:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

this nonsense behavior?

FCP, last December and Jaunary you and I exchanged a great volume of friendly emails, in which we discussed many problem users. You did not then indicate that I am a "malicious editor." Rather, you treated me as a sympathetic peer. When did that assessment change? In any event, I have never engaged in "malicious editing." That I am well-educated in the I-P issue, and able to document all sort of facts about it, and that the minority Zionist here don't like that, is not a violation of any RW rules that I know of. And for you to compare me to Castaigne indicates your unseriousness. It's too absurd to substantively reply to.---Mona- (talk) 00:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

It changed when you started edit warring over anything remotely related to IP. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 00:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

And when, in your view, did I begin doing that?---Mona- (talk) 01:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Come on FCP, since I returned from my sabbatical I've done little editing of I-P pages. So when did this misbehavior you NOW-- since our emails of December and Januray -- supposedly commence?---Mona- (talk) 01:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hold on a sec

Could this be... an ideological block demop? *gasp* 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:52, 17 April 42016 AQD (UTC)

Hell no. I literally don't know which side Mona et. al. falls on, only that it's about Israel somehow. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 23:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

By this logic, the Kugel/Aris cases were ideological as well. Spoiler: They all are Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:58, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I believe you, Fuzzy. Though it's probably best it doesn't turn into an ideological demop. I'm sure you agree that'd reflect badly on the wiki. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:28, 18 April 42016 AQD (UTC)

FCP is either lying or has something akin to Alzheimers. He and I have exchanged a great deal of personal email, and my position on I-P, as opposed to several other editors, was somehwat at issue. I can post them if that is not against the rules.---Mona- (talk) 00:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Lol. I'll make it a higher priority to remember the political positions of people on the internet from three months ago. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 00:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Wait, more to the point: didn't we 'agree on Israel-Palestine? That's a pretty damn odd ideological ban, eh? FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 00:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Now hold on, I thought you said you had no idea where I fall "about Israel." And no, we are not in much agreement. You are not trustworthy.---Mona- (talk) 00:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Humans have this ability to go back and reread text. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 03:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

You don't generally do a thing about this kind of problem, 142. We who speak out, get in the trenches, take much more heat. And FCP knows goddam good and well "what side I land on." That said, he wants the whole issue of I-P gone.---Mona- (talk) 23:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Those damned yahoodis, trying to suppress the truth! Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't give a shit about those cases. I don't give a shit about Mona's beliefs. I give a shit about this nonsensical, high-drama behavior that Mona is prone to. This coop is PRIME example. FuzzyCatPotato of the Shoddy Mittens (talk/stalk) 00:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

FCP, please show me in the RW rules where my behavior constitutes "high-drama behavior" that violates them.---Mona- (talk) 00:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Is opening a coop case the best way to dial down the drama? - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 04:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

This vote has been closed. Please do not add, remove or change votes. The result of this vote was: Inconclusive, do nothing

Vote Desysop The edit wars are getting out of hand indeed, but I do not think this merits deautopatrolling. A demop for a while won't hurt.--JorisEnter (talk) 23:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC) Please specify, for the record, what I did to merit a de-mopping. I don't care what happens, but I want a record of what my infractions purportedly are, that are clear violations of written rules.---Mona- (talk) 23:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC) αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 23:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC) I was so, so wrong to trust you when I did. I tend not to let online issue personally reach me. You were a partial exception, and I was grossly wrong. ---Mona- (talk) 00:37, 18 April 2016 (UTC) She is continuously warring against dissenting opinions on article she decides are solely hers to edit, and has abused her power.s Not to mention threaten to sockpuppet and brigade to sway things her way. Sandflapjack (talk) 00:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC) Ineligible and you know it. — Unsigned, by: that bon / talk / contribs No? Sandflapjack has 135 edits and was made on 21 May 2015. Their user rights page lists them as eligible. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 00:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC) Thank you. I would think it would be bullshit if mona and her brigade could vote to unpsyop me but I somehow wouldnt be allowed to do the same for her when she is abusing her power. I dont think I could really ever find it in me to brigade like she has, its just not in me nature to use the system like that. Sandflapjack (talk) 00:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC) FCP appears to be right, though SFJ made a grand total of three edits before disappearing for nine months. He didn't start editing much until 1 March this year. Also, SFJ, "Mona and her brigade"? Seriously?--JorisEnter (talk) 00:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC) Yes SFJ. In RW-World, moved by FCP, I am just like you. It's Alice thru the looking glass, all the way down. Difference is, I do not care in the least.---Mona- (talk) 00:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC) Demop at least for a bit, to rein her in. CorruptUser (talk) 00:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC) Rein in what? What RULES have I violated?---Mona- (talk) 01:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC) Rule 0 in every rulebook ever printed, ever. "Don't piss people off". You never worked with me Mona, everything with you was always "this is how it's going to be, Ill get my exact way eventually". Compromise is impossible with you, you think that you own this wiki and that you are chief editor creating Monawiki, and constantly harass David Gerard when you don't get your way, insisting that he clamp down on people that are creating not-Monawiki. I'm always nervous about ideological bans, but this isn't about ideology, it's about you pissing too many people off. CorruptUser (talk) 01:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC) I have in fact negotiated edits with you. But in any event, there is no sanctionable "Rule 0" at RW. You are making shit up to get rid of me. You have nothing to cite that merits it, however. I have a platform, and I'll make sure this petty maliciousness becomes known.---Mona- (talk) 01:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC) Oh no, I'll never be able to blog in 140 characters or less again! CorruptUser (talk) 01:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC) You just tell yourself that: 1. My only available platform is Twitter, and 2. that Twitter is not a potent platform.---Mona- (talk) 02:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC) At least for a time so she understands what she has done. She can be an asset to this wiki, but not if she cannot get her more problematic behavior under control. Pizzameister (talk) 02:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC) INELIGIBLE CorruptUser (talk) 02:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC) Arr. Contessa (talk) 02:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC) INELIGIBLE Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC) Against Presumably Mona I'd have to care. This place is run like a circus, and I lack all respect for "standards" and procedure.---Mona- (talk) 23:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC) This coop is inane. A wreath of laurels is what she oughtta get, for standing up to Arisboch's bullying, among others. SmartFeller (talk) 23:48, 17 April 2016 (UTC) Like I said in the block: Being a victim does NOT entitle someone to SHIT UP THE WIKI. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 23:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC) Well, victim or not, I am entitled to have my alleged infractions matched up with specific RW rules prohibiting it. ---Mona- (talk) 00:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC) [ec] Never said it did, and your (FCP's) estimation of who is responsible for shitting up the wiki is, in my view, flawed. Ciao. SmartFeller (talk) 00:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC) Have you read the Zionism article lately? It's as one-eyed as a comedy pirate. Robledo (talk) 00:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC) We should end this. Leave the coop alone for a while. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC) So what should we do? Let Mona continue this nonsense behavior? 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 00:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC) This is about the fourth request: Please much up my alleged this "nonsense behavior" with the spewcific ryules I am purported to have violated.---Mona- (talk) 00:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC) Already done. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 00:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC) Amen to that. SmartFeller (talk) 00:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC) People become opposed to the Coop when it's used against them. How interesting. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 00:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC) I voted this option for blatantly ideological reasons, as I simply believe the person she was reverting on the Clinton article was just wrong. I'm not "opposed to the coop" though, for reference. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC) Mona is generally right. On the odd occasion she's been in the wrong it's been corrected damn soon. FCP is a ... Pippa (talk) 02:37, 18 April 2016 (UTC) Also she is one of the more knowledgeable about Israel/Palestine. If she were sanctioned I think she'd leave - that would be a great loss to the wiki. Pippa (talk) 02:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC) Well that's not ideological at all. Lord Aeonian (talk) 03:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC) The coop needs to calm down for a while. We also need some way of dealing with edit wars that doesn't potentially drive off generally constructive editors by taking away their user rights. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 04:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC) Goat Doesn't anyone think this stuff is getting out of hand? If anything, block her from the Isreal/Palestine pages and just be done with it.Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC) Yup. This is the third Coop case in two weeks. Perhaps I should start playing the Dies Irae Verdi's Messa da Requiem rather than some of Mozart's flute concerts - seems more appropriate to the situation.--JorisEnter (talk) 23:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC) That almost amounts to banning -Mona- from RationalWiki, so... FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 23:20, 17 April 2016 (UTC) I was talking about the somewhat apocalyptic state of the wiki, especially RC.--JorisEnter (talk) 23:25, 17 April 2016 (UTC) Yep, we're probably in HCM2. God, I miss BW. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 23:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC) If this goes on for a while we'll soon enough enter HCM1, I fear.--JorisEnter (talk) 00:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC) There should be an HM-1, where the conflict is brought off the wiki and is destroying other places as well. Sandflapjack (talk) 00:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Just an Aside

Has anyone noticed that the editors who keep coming up in these coops share common traits? I've made a short list:

• More often than not they have LANCB'd at least once

• They tend to be de facto single topic editors

• They tend to be zealots, related to the above

• They often exhibit a fear or asserted awareness of a ruling cabal composed of ideological opponents, such as "Zionists," "SJWs," "Bernie bros," etc.

• They are highly active on talk pages, the Coop, and other social areas, and contribute a disproportionate amount compared to other editors

I'm thinking of all the "controversial" editors here, and it seems they all meet the above criteria. Thoughts? Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:33, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

"They tend to be de facto single topic editors" Yeah, like when I founded this. And greatly added to this. And all the Constitutional law, or American religion pages I've also worked on, And so many, many more.---Mona- (talk) 00:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

And when I made this article. And added to this. IT's true that some are focused, but doing a broad generalization is not useful to the discussion. It would be wrong to paint me or Mona or even Arisboch, Avenger, Castaigne, or Sorte as zealots. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to you. To qualify for this list, you'd have to meet the best requirement of all - the paranoia. So far I don't see you complaining about Zionists and postmodernists, so that's good. Also, by "zealotry," I mean when someone absolutely refuses to admit issues they care about are nuanced and not everything is black and white. Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

People would probably see me as fitting these for some reason, but I often really enjoy lurking on the paleontology pages. Sandflapjack (talk) 00:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

From a Friend of Mona

It is quite pathetic & sad that many on this wiki are going on this idiotic "civility & compromise" charade that is utterly intellectually phony. Classification of what's "uncivil" here are solely based on how to ensure this gatekeeping of the political spectrum to only allowing groveling to the apartheid & human rights atrocities of the Israeli settler state. Somehow defending the genocidal subjugation of Palestinians with a zealous passion is not considered "off the wall" or "out of bounds." For a site dedicated to supposed political rationality, there is just shameless focus on proudly attacking any dumbass strawman so to be Proudly Pragmatic of a colonial terror. ^{— Unsigned, by: Felid11 / talk / contribs}

Thanks friend. This is an attempted ideological purge, replete with lies form a moderator yet. As you know, I've never invited my friends to come fight my battles here for me. But it's useful for some to see that, if I so chose, I could recruit many to "asssit" my POV. But we won't do that. What we'll do, is make a record of this coop case, and spread the word "how it is here."---Mona- (talk) 01:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

By the way, I've never shared this outside of here. But this site has welcomed back, with open arms, a vicious Zionist who happily joined with others elsewhere to contact my adult children and tell them horrific things about me. They have let him back after supposedly banning him, and this coop case involves my supposed "edit warring" with this vile person. A person who is always insulting, and crude, and who asserts lots of garbage he cannot document. That's who is welcome here. It may be time to advertise how things go at this site.---Mona- (talk) 01:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Apparently harassing the children of a user is Very Civil Behavior as long as it's committed in the name of the racist destruction of Palestinian livelihoods, extrajudicial slaughter by illegal settlers, repressive espionage regimes, & razing away families' homes as well as anti-Semitic labeling of it by Zionists as the manifestation of Judaism. ^{— Unsigned, by: Felid11 / talk / contribs}

>"I could brigade if i wanted to, but I wont!" >friends show up to defend her hehehehehe Sandflapjack (talk) 01:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

You ain't seen a brigade. When I ask for that, you'll know it. One is not that.---Mona- (talk) 01:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Just letting you know, brigading is seriously against rationalwiki's BOFA as well as generally dickish. Sandflapjack (talk) 02:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Now if someone made an account just to post a thread called "From a Friend of Kugel," and proceed to rant about how unfair RW is plus the same old talking points, everyone would have cried "Aris sock!" Lord Aeonian (talk) 01:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Well sure, but I have no history of socks. This is a friend of mine (this person will out themselves when I ask, if it needs to be done). And what I have in mind, is not to "protect myself" from this ideological purging. No, I will marshal this friend, and others (I'm pretty well connected) to douse the disinfectant of sunlight on this site. So, I want answers to all my above inquiries about SPECIFICALLY what I did that matches up with SPECIFIC RW rules I supposedly violated. And I want to know from FCP exactly when, and why, he decided I was an "malicious editor," in light of our lengthy and friendly email exchanges through last January. That, and I will want it known who was "banned" that I'm supposedly "edit warring" with, that this Zionist zealot was allowed back, and the vicious thing he did to me. Only to be protected as I was purged. I will have a record of this.---Mona- (talk) 02:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you realize how comical you sound, talking about being "purged" by the yahoodis? Do you realize how much credibility you lose everytime you try to say there is massive conspiracy against you? Lord Aeonian (talk) 02:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

WTF? I don't know what a "yahoodi" is. Nor do I claim a "conspiracy." It's an open, covert ideological phenomenon. In part, because FCP just HATES the political issues being at this site, but especially I-P. Nevermind that the articles long predate my arrival.---Mona- (talk) 02:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

The Great Compromise

I may be too late for posting this since FCP says he will close this by tomorrow, but I think there may be a compromise. Mona has clearly been edit warring, but it was with SFJ, who was desysopped, and Kugelschreiber, Arisboch's sock clone. So now onto the compromise. I think we can wave the Bernie/Hillary edit warring since she hasn't edit warred with anyone else. First, since we can all agree that she and Kugel have been edit warring for ideological reasons, they both should be prevented from reverting each other on any articles related to the I/P conflict and antisemitism/Islamaphobia for 60 days. If either one of them reverts the other's edit on any of these pages they should be immediately desysopped; if they are still edit warring then they will be topic banned. If they have a problem with any of the other's edits they will have to make a case for their edit and against the other's edit and a third party will have to revert or, at least, edit it. Secondly, the two of them have got to stop making threats and accusing the other of bad behaviour because they always end up spilling rage somewhere else and bother other users with their bad behaviour.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC) 02:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

This vote has been closed. Please do not add, remove or change votes. The result of this vote was: Inconclusive, do nothing

Vote Pro --Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC) 02:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC) Con No. It is grossly offensive to me to be put in parity with Arisboch, my abuser. I have never done anything to any human being such as he assisted in doing to me. Your framing, Owlman, is disgusting and extremely offensive. The only "threat" I offer is to expose that this site attempted an ideological purge of me -- led by FCP who flat out lied about not knowing about my position on I-P, until I let it be known I have his emails showing otherwise -- but it could not match up my supposed infractions with any RW rules. "Edit-warring" with SFJ or with Arisboch is almost always because those two are wholly unreasonable. Typhoon and I managed to negotiate our differences and end edit warring. But with those other two, it can't be done. It's not my fault that I'm especially interested in Bernie Sanders and I-P issues, and that unreasonable and even vicious people are attracted to those topics. I reject this false equivalency.---Mona- (talk) 02:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC) I wasn't saying your threats are the same only that threats have been made. I don't blame you for being interested in the topics that you are which is why I am merely suggesting that you two can't revert each other. I agree the SFJ was unreasonable which is why I am saying we disregard FCP complaint about the edit warring on Hillary Clinton's and Bernie Sanders's pages; I even voted to desysop them because they were unreasonably edit warring with you. I also voted to ban Kugel because he is a problematic sock, but that vote was determined to be inconclusive and most everyone agreed that the coop case had run too long.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC) 02:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC) Hell I even told Kugel to leave you alone when you first reappeared.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC) 02:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC) The "threat" I've made is wholly legitimate. Transparency is a high value, and if this site is going to purge me because I've taken on SFJ and an abusive cretin such as Arisboch, that's notweworthy in the larger world. I-P articles were almost all here before I arrived; that I stood up and freed the majority viewpoint is not a crime. The wrongdoing is letting a miscreant like Arisboch openly participate here, and even be in a position to "edit war' with me, a person he badly abused. (Which happened, in part, because FCP idiotically invited a known cohort of assholes to come on over.) No. I reject that I have a substantial share of blame in any of this. In fact, this coop case is outrageous in light of all that I've pointed out.---Mona- (talk) 02:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC) But there isn't anything I can do about Kugel. I understand that many of the articles you edit were here before or were created by other user's and I never said they weren't.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC) 02:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC) Nah. Nice try at a good compromise in a heated debate, though. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC) Gote Do you realize that this is basically banning the editors in question, since they are zealots? Think of it this is way - let's say Kugel edits the Israel page. If you Mona changes anything he said, Kugel will (probably correctly) say that Mona is reverting him, and we're back to where we started. The only reasonable solution is to bar them from the problematic topics, but I dare say even that would fail because one of them is threatening to call others to do the work for them. FCP is correct, this political BS causes nothing but trouble. Lord Aeonian (talk) 02:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC) Yes, but the vote above this will end up being inconclusive.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC) 02:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC) And? Your "great compromise" is flawed. Lord Aeonian (talk) 02:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC) Well it was just a title. Anyways, in the above scenario, Mona would be desysopped and would have to edit w/o the ability to revert other editor's edits. If she edit warred with Kugel again she would be topic banned, and if you are right then she would be de facto banned. Now, she does edit other pages besides those related to the Middle East (so does Kugel), but I think both would find it problematic to be unable to revert anyone else's edits so I would hope that they would be rational enough, or at least self-interested enough, that they wouldn't edit war.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC) 02:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC) "If she edit warred with Kugel again she would be topic banned" That. Man. Is. My. Abuser. He was supposedly "banned" for it. (Have you ever been filled with anxiety wondering if you should alert your son that some sick people on the Internet have his published his phone number, and those of his neighbors, and may be calling them to spew vile things about his mother, including that she loves pedophiles?) How the fuck dare you equate me with him, or try to put us in parity? ---Mona- (talk) 03:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC) How am I equating you with him?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC) 03:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC) If you cannot see that it is implicit in your proposal and its wording, I can't explain it to you.---Mona- (talk) 03:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC) I understand that your threats are dangerous, but they are disruptive. I don't disagree with your edits and nothing can be done about Kugel since the community didn't ban him, but with this proposal if he does revert you he will lose his sysop privileges and may even be topic banned. If you truly believe that enough people agree with your viewpoint then they will revert Kugel while you can simply continue to edit; if may be frustrating to have to wait for someone to revert his edit, but people my sympathise with you if he edit wars with them. So yes, I may be holding you two to the same restriction and, therefore, the same moral standing, but the alternative is to do nothing.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC) 03:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC) "If you truly believe that enough people agree with your viewpoint then they will revert Kugel while you can simply continue to edit; if may be frustrating to have to wait for someone to revert his edit" I don't simply "believe it," I've seen it. And I am not some "marked" editor who has to sit back and let that cretin do as he will without reverting. Not gonna happen. Know that as you decide whether to quash this coop case. Again: I will always accede to a majority vote. But I will not accede to Arisboch's unsourced crap or to CorruptUser's anger-driven, hysterical edits. People who reason with me, and if they have a majority, I will always back down, as is only intellectually and humanly proper. I do not generally respect the (absence of) rules here, but I do abide by majority vote on edits. If I was generally in the minority, I would simply leave and not come back.---Mona- (talk) 03:37, 18 April 2016 (UTC) I am not going to keep arguing with because this isn't going anywhere, but I believe this community would revert any "unsourced crap" especially if you made a good case against it and you usually do.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC) 03:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC) No, the sensible alternative is to block Arisboch indefinitely and confiscate his mop with prejudice. SmartFeller (talk) 03:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC) And that may be, but that proposal failed and it will fail again unless people change their mind about Kugel's behaviour. If this proposal could just change Kugel's insistence to edit war with Mona then wouldn't that be enough to support this.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC) 03:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC) It is beyond disgusting that FCP can protect Arisboch's returning, and lie about his (FCP's) not knowing my views of the I-P issue, (who could believe that anyway; one would have to have been in a coma this past year to not know my views in I-P, but reminded of his emails to me he backed down from that absurd and false claim) and bring a coop case against me. Perhaps, Owlman, you should consider the foul things Arisboch did to get himself "banned," and put your energy into upholding bans on users so that they can't just create countless socks and romp at will.---Mona- (talk) 03:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC) That is a failure of the mob's robustness or resilience then. And, no, a solution that marks them both as equally special should be a non-starter. SmartFeller (talk) 03:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC) Well, a proposal against Kugel can never happen because there are several users who believe that it would be ideological and would see Mona the true problem. So the only way we can get a proposal is to compromise with both sides and hold both users to the same restrictions.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC) 03:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC) "So the only way we can get a proposal is to compromise with both sides and hold both users to the same restrictions." In which case, this site needs a spotlight. That I can be lumped together with my abuser, and sanctioned with him, that anyone thinks that makes moral or practical sense, is worth some attention, given the mid-level profile of this site---Mona- (talk) 04:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC) " So the only way we can get a proposal is to compromise with both sides and hold both users to the same restrictions." I don't compromise with my abuser. Ever. And I pollyannishly expect this site not to let him interact with me, or even be here. I won't be changing that wholly moral and reasonable expectation. That said, I would treat his edits as legit if they were, but they are not. And I made that clear -- that he has no facts behind his edits -- which is why he became my abuser and thus should not be here. It probably will come down to me or him and the policy that protects scum abusers like him.---Mona- (talk) 03:59, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

A better solution

Why not cut out the middle man and topic ban them to began with? Do you really think users who say things like:

"I-P articles were almost all here before I arrived; that I stood up and freed the majority viewpoint is not a crime. The wrongdoing is letting a miscreant like Arisboch openly participate here"

are "rational" or even "self-interested?" These people think they're martyrs for the "majority viewpoint," whatever they think that is. In fact, this editor also said, in addition to bragading threats:

"Moreover, if you don't get rid of me, I will continue to edit that definition in a manner that is balanced and sound, and a majority will, if not entirety agree with me, not agree with you. That's my crime, establishing a majority against your Zionist enthusiasms."

Nevermind the absurdity considering the fact that the evidence used against Kugel was that Arisboch said something similar, the point is that you can't reason with zealots. Lord Aeonian (talk) 03:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. Let's not do a topic ban. Articles can always be protected if there's an edit war. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

This vote has been closed. Please do not add, remove or change votes. The result of this vote was: If only this had happened

Delete the chicken coop The purpose of this page is supposedly to avoid HCM, but it seems like this page actually fuels HCM. Isn't it time to delete the Chicken Coop? Contessa (talk) 02:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC) Looks like Mona asked her friends to save her precious protect button. "wont brigade" my ass. Sandflapjack (talk) 02:59, 18 April 2016 (UTC) And the alternative is what exactly? It's like shutting down all the courts and triumphantly claiming that's you've stopped all crime. The problems still remain, and for all the drama and HCM, almost all the cases that are brought to the coop really do have a problem at the root. A problem that needs to be dealt with one way or the other. Don't get me wrong, the coop is woefully inadequate in dealing with these problems, but it's better than nothing. Carpetsmoker (talk) 03:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC) Oui! Let's do this people! 142.124.55.236 (talk) 02:48, 18 April 42016 AQD (UTC) Aye. Pippa (talk) 02:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC) Oui oui! Je déteste tout le monde ici! CorruptUser (talk) 02:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC) Conditional oui Only if RW actually becomes a dictatorship, so that the useless contrarians who whine about me imposing my opinion can actually feel an autocratic boot on their neck. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 03:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC) Ah! So you do admit imposing your opinion? Fair enough. Pippa (talk) 03:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC) [ec] Let him have his moment of victimhood. He's earned it. SmartFeller (talk) 03:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC) What usually happens now is I say "hey guys do you wanna do X", then you say "but FCP is a wanker!" and I slink back into the shadows. In the new, righteous regime, I'll ask the question -- and call everyone else a wanker. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 03:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC) What are you on about? Pippa (talk) 03:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC) Look at your responses to anything I say. You almost never bother to explain why I'm wrong, what I could do better. You, per routine, claim that I think my opinion is right and/or that the wiki is mine, and call me a wanker. Bravo. Truly rational. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 03:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC) Fuzzy, Fuzzy, you make this too easy... "But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! 142.124.55.236 (talk) 03:32, 18 April 42016 AQD (UTC) You didn't respond to his points, wanker! Lord Aeonian (talk) 03:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC) Neither did you! *gasp* 142.124.55.236 (talk) 04:24, 18 April 42016 AQD (UTC) Nay Guys. Just stop. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Just so it is clear: I will not change my approach to editing if this coop case is quashed. Arisboch will get very little, if any, consideration from me before I revert him, unless he has very good documentation. Ditto for CorruptUser. The only thing that would change that approach is if a majority made it clear they were in general opposition to my POV on I-P issues. Arisboch, if that sicko is to be tolerated here, and CorruptUser, are free to put forth talk page arguments, and I will always abide by a bona fide majority vote, meaning, one that does not include a slew of BoNs or new accounts, the same as I could marshal, if that's how we want it to go. But I will continue to revert when I deem that it is justified and not within the capture of edit warring. Anyone I trust (and you know who you are) can alert me if I exceed those boundaries, and I will listen and adjust accordingly.---Mona- (talk) 03:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Good god

And I was going to follow this up with Kugelschreiber, the last user of three who caused the recent editwars.

But OH NOES ideology!!! Zionism!!! Aaaagh!!! <_<

It sure is a good thing to run stuff like this past the coop, to get community approval! FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 04:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure it has nothing with the fact that these coop cases are ideologically motivated to began with. What you're tying to do is have Saudi Arabia and Iran sit down and work out a trade deal that benefits them both - which they could do. But you're missing the reality - it has little to do with economic and political issues, and everything to do with the fact that either Shias or Sunnis will go to Jannah...and there can be only one. Lord Aeonian (talk) 04:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Really, I am tempted to simply hurl a "fuck you." I have nothing in common with that cretin Arisboch; I do not treat people like that. Ever. This is simply sick, for you even to imply some equivalence. Why you included the dust-up with SFJ in your "indictment" of me is, well, it's absurd. Ditto vis-a-vis Arisboch. Go to bed, FCP. pfft---Mona- (talk) 04:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

You're responding to the wrong person, I'm not FCP :/ As you and your "friend" so blatantly pointed out, this has little to do with bannable offenses and everything to do with what narrative this site will adopt for the Israel and Palestine issues. You can red herr all you want, but that's ideological. Lord Aeonian (talk) 04:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

People have different notions of how the flow goes here. I was replying to FCP, as is obvious.---Mona- (talk) 04:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Aeonian, it is always about ideology whether explicitly or implicitly, but the status quo here wants more than ideology to be the reason for a ban. This site has a bias against anti-vaxxers, creationist, and racist/sexist et. al. so if one edits here then most of us are automatically going to have a bias against their sources and their contributions even if they are really intelligent on issues like economics or altie woo. Once that user starts edit warring several times someone who disagrees with them is bound to bring them here so idk why you think this is unique.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC) 04:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

If the rules of this site permit purely ideologically driven sanctions, that should be made known. If abusers are welcomed back while those they abused are cooped for dealing with them is the way of things, that should be known. Is it reduced to "on the one hand, and on the other." Is that the case?---Mona- (talk) 04:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I meant to imply this is the case with all of these coops, I don't think this is unique. Lord Aeonian (talk) 04:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Just sigh and breathe.

Nope, this isn't a coop case. Maybe this will be deleted. I would just propose that everyone sigh and breathe with relief that this page is empty now. No vote necessary. Just be ... happy. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 22:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)