RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive48

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Make it stop[edit]

Plz make [1] and [2] stawp, thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 15:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I knew it, I fucking knew it!--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 15:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC) 15:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Locked. And look at that: a good use of the chicken coop! =) Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 15:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
So far it is, but I'm not quite convinced, that this Coop thread won't be infected by HCM.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 15:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC) 15:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Protip: stop posting, before someone figures out a reason to get mad. ;P Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 15:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
So where do we go from here? Do we agree to stop accusing each other of being mindless followers of Bernie or Hillary and have a reasoned discussion on the Democratic primary candidates? (talk) 15:42, 17 May 42016 AQD (UTC)


Please wear protective anti-HCM gear before entering. Or, try not to insult anyone. <_< Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 18:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Other ideas[edit]


Pbfreespace3 removed sysop tools from Kugelschreiber, without Kugelschreiber having used the tools in any way meaningfully since 18:21, 17 April 2016. How is this acceptable? Hipocrite (talk) 13:33, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

He has been told not to do this, and he has given them back. If Kugel wanted to coop Pb about this, he would have done so; you're only increasing the drama of what appeared to be a minor issue which has been dealt with.--JorisEnter (talk) 13:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
I consider all toolstripping to be a major issue. Hipocrite (talk) 13:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

In which something entirely different is raised[edit]

You do apparently not consider it a major issue to give someone who is known to edit war about stupid things a mop?--JorisEnter (talk) 13:40, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Nope, not a big deal. Hipocrite (talk) 13:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


Do something[edit]

  1. Strongly admonish PB3. Hipocrite (talk) 13:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
    Ban both editors indefinitely. Conscience (talk) 15:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
    Ineligible. And an obvious troll.--JorisEnter (talk) 15:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
    Ah the famous RW frameup. Call someone a troll and you automatically win! Sorry pal, but thinking Joris Enter is an incompetent, counterproductive, and power hungry bully doesn't make one a troll. I'm curious when you'll start exhibiting a commitment to the truth, if ever. Conscience (talk) 15:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
    You're still ineligible. And insufferable. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 17:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
    Perhaps we should add Category:Insufferable assholes to his userpage?
    Get lost Castaigne2. Keter (talk) 17:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
    Conscience doesn't seem to be Castaigne. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 17:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
    Castaigne would have started attacking Mona instead (that said, Mona has LANCBd for the second time - though this is something of a contradiction in terms).--JorisEnter (talk) 17:59, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
    Not me, dude. Track the IPs. Castaigne2 (talk) 23:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  2. Castaigne2 (talk) 23:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

No action[edit]

  1. Has been dealt with. Hipocrite attempting to stir shit again.--JorisEnter (talk) 13:46, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
    No. A verbal slap on the wrist was already administered anyway. Acquiesce /ˌakwɪˈɛs/ 13:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC) Actually found the eligibility requirements after having a squizz around. The point still stands, though. Acquiesce /ˌakwɪˈɛs/ 13:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
    Thanks for removing yourself! The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 17:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


Isn't KS generally agreed upon to be a sock of a banned user? I don't see why there's fuss over removing his tools in the first place. Not saying anything about that btw, just pointing this out. Lord Aeonian (talk) 15:03, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

A majority thought he was a sock indeed, but a two thirds majority is needed to ban a user. Which raises the interesting question if he should be counted as a sock or not.--JorisEnter (talk) 15:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

God, why[edit]

Do not desysop anyone w/o a coop vote, such an action is an easy way to be cooped. I agree that he is an asshole but that doesn't give you the unilateral power to desysop him.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC) 02:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Acknowledged. Raising awareness. Please let me know if he uses his sysop tools in some good way, as it'll be a milestone. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

We return to the Chicken Coop to see if RationalWiki can turn A Solved Problem into A Festering Drama-Wound.

Staaaapppp Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 15:18, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Trololololo lo lolo lo lolo lo loh... yeyeyeyeyeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!
Trololololo lo lolo lo lolo lo loh...
Trolololololohhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!! Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 00:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC) 00:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! God. I wonder what some good YTPs of that are. One in reverse maybe? Know any good ones, Billy Mays? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh, there are many, many YTPs using the video with Eduard Khil a.k.a. Trololo Guy as source, but finding the few good ones is a major bitch.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 00:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC) 00:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Go get some for me, please. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Gonna close this[edit]

The two aren't fighting. Only Hipocrite and Castaigne are mad, and those are somewhat inevitable. Good? FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 07:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Moderators closing coop due to lack of drama? Dictator! Censorship!--JorisEnter (talk) 07:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Owlman and Typhoon are having a fight[edit]

There have been too many reversions of the Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton pages for comfort. How do we solve this problem? My proposed solution would be for both to step back and refrain from editing the two articles for at least a day if not a week, while the community at large (or the involved individuals) tries to work out a compromise wording both can live with. Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 21:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I am willing to do this.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 21:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC) 21:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
[mod hat on] Sounds good. Typhoon? Both step back, RW really isn't going to decide this at any level - David Gerard (talk) 22:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Sounds good. Unfortunately, this is RationalWiki mense Maio anno MMXVI, which means that compromise is pretty much impossible. Especially when the issue is Bernie/Hillary.--JorisEnter (talk) 22:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Well I was able to compromise with Kitsunelaine over "Bernie-Bros" and the site was able to compromise on several pages on the I/P conflict such as Zionism.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC) 23:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
There's a difference between compromise and the issue just dying down as both sides exhausted themselves. Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Compromise is possible when you have superdelegates: you just squish 'em like a bug, kinda like Moderators do. And we all live happily ever after. nobsBernie bimbos r trailer trash 00:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
nobs am dum Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 02:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Alternative: burn all mainstream-political articles, salt Earth. FuzzyCatPotato of the Beloved Disasters (talk/stalk) 02:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

This site is harsher on Obama than Hillary, which I feel is unjust. I have a feeling our view will change if she becomes president and is like Obama. I think we should be pro-Sanders, but that's just like, my opinion, man. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
RW doesn't have a political ideology. As far as I am aware at least so we, we being RW that is, can't be pro Sanders or anyone else. Acei9 02:54, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
The higher amount of Obama criticisms is probably just because he's been in the spotlight for 8 years, while Hillary spent that time... I dunno, being Bill's wife? I'm Australian, I hardly pay attention. If Hillary were to be President for 8 years, there's no doubt it would even out eventually. Acquiesce /ˌakwɪˈɛs/ 02:43, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
She was also Secretary of State for Obama's first term. And eh, I don't blame you for not paying that much attention to foreign stuff. I think the lion's share of us Americans wouldn't know Craid Thompson, Eddie Obeid, Troy Buswell, or other Australian politicians who've been in the middle of controversies (aside from Abbot). ℕoir LeSable (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Fuzzy, you have stated that we should cover politicians who have had conspiracy theories against them. If we do this we will eventually have to cover controversies that said politician has been involved in and thus we would reach the same point as we are now, so unless you are suggesting we delete everything from Sanders to Bush than we are going to have to keep these articles.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC) 02:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Yet our coverage of political topics like Clinton is not conspiracy-centric. Where is the discussion of the Kill Lists? Of Foster? Of all the nonsense conspiracies that Bernie supporters throw out about her rigging elections and beig a pawn of international banking cartels (sound familiar?)? They just aren't there. Instead, it is a truly political article. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 03:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
We cover 'conspiracy theories', yes; in HRC's case many of the shady dealings (mail server that dodges FOIA, Clinton Foundation shenanigans, Hillary Victory Fund, Goldman-Sachs ties) have some foundation in fact. This does not make them any less conspiratorial. We also do authoritarian politicians, and Hillary's warrior spirit probably counts. The existence of these articles is probably inevitable. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 03:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
(EC) Well, we do mention the scandals such as Vince Foster, who has his own page, and Whitewater. If you want you can mention "Troopergate", which David Brook covers in his book, Blinded by the Right, but that manufactroversy is more related to her husband. The whole belief that there was some centralised conspiracy to rig the voting system in the primaries is best countered by Rob's article on the primaries; the same can be said about superdelegates. I assume that the "international banking cartel" comment is a jab towards me but I don't recall saying anything about that. I have contended that she is beholden to "moneyed interests" but that is inherent to the very state the US electoral system has become. She hasn't done anything purely corrupt, ie bribery, in the sense that she changed her opinion "in the moment" but these countries and corporations are investing in her in order to get a return. I think it is appropriate to cover these controversies because people tend to oversimplify them and assume that they mean she did something criminal when she is merely Machiavellian and knows how to "play the game". A good example of this oversimplification is the email scandal (and, especially, her use of a private server) which appears to violate transparency and archival laws but her use of a private server is neither unique to her nor criminal. She may be a qualified policy wonk but she has made awful decisions on foreign policy and has pushed for austerity, such decisions deserve criticism.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC) 04:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I was busy in real life, so I missed all of this. I have no problem with not editing both articles for some time. However, I gotta love how Owlman went on to revert me one last time after he already promised to stop. Typhoon (talk) 15:53, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

My edit on Clinton's page was at 12:06 and on Bernie's page it was at 21:07 while my promise was at 21:17 and this thread was moved here at 21:19.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC) 18:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Now now[edit]

If we got rid of the political articles, what would we edit war over? And if the Recent Changes section wasn't filled with drama, how would the community stay alive? The entire site would die. Lord Aeonian (talk) 03:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Eh, RW has been like 99% dramafree this month, with two exceptions. There have been a bunch less edits, but not much less than last month. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 03:53, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Are you kidding? There are so many other things that have created much bigger rifts. Editing any Israel-Palestine articles is a good start. If all else fails, just wait for some gator BoN to pop in for a visit and take it from there. Acquiesce /ˌakwɪˈɛs/ 03:54, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
I-P is a political issue, Gamergate is a political issue. You just helped prove my point. Lord Aeonian (talk) 04:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
My mistake; I took 'political pages' to literally mean pages about politicians and governments, like Hillary and Sanders themselves. In that case, deleting 'political articles' would probably erase a rather substantial chunk of the entire site depending on how you define it. I wouldn't go about it lightly. Acquiesce /ˌakwɪˈɛs/ 04:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
They may be political issues but they are also intertwined with pseudohistory, religious fundamentalism, authoritarianism, and various forms of discrimination which are all missional topics.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC) 04:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Are they? Says who? The problem is that these topics do not have facts to clearly support one side. The I-P issues are an excellent example. Who is right? Who is wrong? Who can say? By contrast, pseudohistory, religion, etc, can all be objectively and thoroughly debunked. The evidence clearly supports one conclusion. Such is far from the case with the political articles, and this is way there is so much conflict over them. Lord Aeonian (talk) 04:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Well not everything is so easily debunked but that doesn't mean we shouldn't cover it. Nothing exists in a bubble so any discussion on the topics above will lead to pseudohistorical and religious arguments.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC) 04:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Archive this?[edit]

Owlman and Typhoon appear to have calmed down. Can this case be archived?--JorisEnter (talk) 14:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Sure. I'm trying to resolve the dispute with Typhoon on my and Hillary's talk pages, and we've had more substantive discussion in the past hour than in the past days. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 15:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)