RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive49

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

JorisEnter[edit]

This vote has been closed. Please do not add, remove or change votes.
The result of this vote was: JorisEnter keeps his sysop and tech rights.

Once again I've had to remove JorisEnter's sysop status after, once again, he is using sysop tools vindictively against user:Conscience based on non-existent rules & vague paranoia. See vandal log, user rights log and previous Coop Case.

Please let this one stick for a while. Karajou Junior needs to learn that he is not in charge of who edits or expresses opinions here. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, just to be sure, what was the question? "Should JE be de-sysop'd?" or "Should JE keep his sysop?" ℕoir LeSable (talk) 18:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Judging by the voting pattern and by the very nature of coops, I'd say it's the former.--JorisEnter (talk) 18:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes[edit]

  1. Ë. (talk) 00:57, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
    Hmmmm, has made 6 edits since 2007 - I have a suspicion who Conscience is.--JorisEnter (talk) 01:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
    Stop. This is the sort of McCarthyism that Weaseloid was talking about. Does it matter who they are? Nope. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 01:03, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
    I'm not arguing for banning him or not counting his vote or whatever. I find it strange, however, that someone who basically hasn't edited in nine years would suddenly come along for a coop in which someone who is probably a former editor and who claims to have been watching us for nine years.--JorisEnter (talk) 01:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
    I think it's ironic FCP is accusing people of McCarthyism when the point Joris is making is likely true. Conscience said he was here at the same time period this user E.Wig comes from. Pbfreespace (talk) 01:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
    But alas. It matters not. What matters is the vote. Get to it, folks! Pbfreespace (talk) 01:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. We think Joris needs to stop getting their undies in a twist every time somebody shows up who is critical of the website and its users. As far as I've been aware of, there has never been a rule about blocking people based on their views of RationalWiki or its community and, indeed, in the past RationalWiki has decided that, if somebody wants to be loud and disruptive but not harmful, we might indulge them, we might ignore them, and/or we might mock them, but we've never outright blocked somebody based on their, albeit, loud criticism of RationalWiki and its users. Does it mean Conscience should be a sysop? We aren't that foolish in my reasoning. But they shouldn't be blocked for something that, while mildly disruptive, isn't outright harmful (by that, we mean they aren't vandalising pages or doxxing and threatening users). Yellow (talk) 03:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC), on behalf of John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk)
    Read the CS. You're ineligible.--JorisEnter (talk) 06:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
    Also, who are "we"?--JorisEnter (talk) 06:16, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Joris Enter is a dishonest bully with a history of abusing sysop tools. Conscience (talk) 06:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

You are ineligible to vote, as you only started editing 1 month ago, which is later than the 3 months required. Pbfreespace (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

No[edit]

  1. JorisEnter should have his mop back. Pbfreespace (talk) 23:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. JorisEnter should have his sysop tools back, but Conscience shouldn't be in the vandalbin. He's no vandal. If anyone, JorisEnter or someone else wants him vandalbinned / banned / whacked over the head with a trout, we should ask the mob on the Chicken Coop page.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 23:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC) 23:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Duh.--JorisEnter (talk) 23:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  4. JorisEnter was idiotic, not abusive. Good thing there's a mobocracy to fix that, huh. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 23:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
    Thanks for the compliment.--JorisEnter (talk) 23:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
    No prob! :) Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 23:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  5. Eh, slap upside the head is enough. CorruptUser (talk) 00:16, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
    ^. This. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 00:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  6. Being mentioned here is all that's needed. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 03:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  7. /: Lord Aeonian (talk) 04:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  8. It was a stupid fight over whether a user should be sysop. Do we really need to start a coop case with every fight. At this rate AH will never return.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:57, 3 June 2016 (UTC) 04:57, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  9. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  10. Nope. nobsBernie bimbos r trailer trash 16:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Wait, what about Joris's Tech tools? CorruptUser (talk) 00:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Have also been removed, because I totally use those when banning people. Or something.--JorisEnter (talk) 00:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


So...[edit]

Five for, zero against, the rest can't be bothered to vote (or is asleep, which I should probably be as well - it's three a clock in the night for fuck's sake). Anyone willing to give me my mop back?--JorisEnter (talk) 00:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Two hours. Wow. What a "fair trial." Taba (talk) 01:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Troll - I've been using this template a lot lately.--JorisEnter (talk) 01:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Your troll doesn't seem to have a premise that justifies fairness. Taba (talk) 01:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Sure, but promise me not to engage ex-LANCB drama turds or mention how many edits a user has to their name again. >.> 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:28, 3 June 42016 AQD (UTC)
As long as I'm not prohibited from marking people as ineligible, I'll try. (as a side note, could someone remove that sysoprevoke thing? and I'd like my tech rights as well - Pb can't grant those).--JorisEnter (talk) 01:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Ad hominem so do not impress me, either. Does anyone read the logic pages? Taba (talk) 01:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes. Pbfreespace (talk) 01:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Says the guy that wrote this.--JorisEnter (talk) 01:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
What's wrong with that? You are no very clearly going after Weaseloid and Conscience almost as a personal vendetta on multiple pages. See, that's how evidence works. Taba (talk) 01:35, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Speaking of logic pages, might I recommend appeal to tradition? ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:40, 3 June 42016 AQD (UTC)
Good post!--JorisEnter (talk) 01:45, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Why? Where has someone committed this logical fallacy? 139.130.16.222 (talk) 01:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
I can't find anywhere on this page where someone has committed this logical fallacy 142 - can you point me in the direction of the diff? 139.130.16.222 (talk) 01:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
No need to trouble yourself, 139, the intended demographic knows what I'm referring to. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 02:02, 3 June 42016 AQD (UTC)
I see. I've called you out on this before actually. Here's an article that may interest you and is of some tangential relevance. 139.130.16.222 (talk) 02:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Lol. Thanks for making me smirk, at least. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 02:08, 3 June 42016 AQD (UTC)

Weaseloid[edit]

...has removed my sysop/autopatrolled/tech/ninja rights and put me on sysoprevoke. The reason provided is that "Cannot be trusted with admin rights. Persistently enforcing non-existent rules after being called out on this repeatedly". This undoubtedly refers to my vandalbinning and desysopping of Conscience, who appears to be our latest resident troll. For those who haven't noticed, after FCP posted the results of his mission survey, Conscience pretty much accused him of being a dictator, claiming that "you noobs don't know anything about consensus or how this site should be run" - an interesting statement to make for somebody who had by then made a grand total of five edits. When FCP kindly asked him what was "off mission" about the survey, his reply was "Go away. Go away. Go away. Jesus fuck go away." Meanwhile he claimed to have been around here since 2009 [1][2] He later goes on a crusade, attacking pretty much everything FCP or I do [3][4][5][6][7], accusing me of being a liar[8] and attempting to impersonate me and implicitly and explictly claiming I have Asperger's and an incompetent, counterproductive, and power hungry bully. He also fails to understand basic mobocracy, notwithstanding the fact that earlier on he accused FCP of not understanding consensus.

I asked Weaseloid if he cared to explain why this user (who, for the record, has made a single edit that was not either something in his userspace or arguing with other users) deserved sysop rights; the answer was "nope".

Besides, RW:CS#Demoting and promoting users states pretty clearly that "Complaints of this kind should be raised at the chicken coop page, and the decision to "promote" the sysop should only be reached after a full discussion."--JorisEnter (talk) 23:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC) Not to mention the comment that "Do not remove sysop status without cause or you will lose your own." Yay for mobocracy.--JorisEnter (talk) 23:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Yet you removed Conscience's sysop status without a moment's thought, did you not? WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
What makes this so hilarious is that I wasn't even the first to do that.--JorisEnter (talk) 23:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
It seems pretty clear from Conscience's statements that he is a former user. Since we don't know who, and he isn't being open and forthright, he may be the sockpuppet of a banned/vandal-binned user. We should not trust Conscience or his motives, since he's already insulted half the neighborhood in his first few days being here. Pbfreespace (talk) 23:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Conscience is an idiot, not a vandal. Don't bin him. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 23:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
(EC)You, Joris & Fuzzy are not "half the neighbourhood". & Users are welcome to leave the site & return, under the same name or a different one. That you don't know who they are is neither here nor there. This bizarre paranoia about unknown users is unbecoming for the site. + Everyone already knows who Arisboch's & Avenger's socks are. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Do you think this has anything to do with "ban evasion" or "not actually LANCB'd"? Seriously? I binned and desysopped him (still no reason provided for why he should be mopped in the first place) because he's a troll, regardless of his probable status as a former user that has returne.--JorisEnter (talk) 23:30, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Besides, where did I "enforce non-existent rules"? I cannot help but note that you are using the exact same words as Conscience.--JorisEnter (talk) 23:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
@Joris: He probs read that, don't be paranoid.
I don't think Conscience is weaseloid's sockpuppet - but he's taken up an interesting liking for such an obvious troll.--JorisEnter (talk) 23:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Conspiratorial thinking. Awesome. Taba (talk) 02:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
@Weasel: You can't complain that someone removed sysop rights soon after being granted. The point of that rule is so that editors don't go around desysopping each other, not that they don't prevent people they don't think are trustworthy from becoming sysop. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 23:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
That said, as I noted on Joris's talkpage, there's really no reason Conscience can't get sysop. They're not a vandal or an idiot. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 00:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
"Conscience isn't an idiot." Wait, what?--JorisEnter (talk) 00:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, "bumbling idiot". 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 00:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh, enough with linguistic parsing. Going by your own standard you set up in the earlier post, he shouldn't get a sysop. But alas, most people already agree. I'll put it up for a vote. Pbfreespace (talk) 00:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

"Most" is a weasel word. Who are these people? Taba (talk) 01:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Johnny, Jack, Jim, and James. Pbfreespace (talk) 02:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Politics[edit]

Honestly it's clear to me that Weaseloid is supporting Conscience for political reasons. I have identified a schism among RWians - relatively right wing individuals (JorisEnter, PBfree, Kugel, Owlman, etc) and relatively left wing individuals (Typhoon, Weaseloid, Kit, Castinagne2, etc). Conscience is only attacking "right" individuals, so Weaseloid supports the user. Lord Aeonian (talk) 04:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

What are your parameters? What criteria did you use to place me in the right-wing category? Not to mention the other people. Is right-wing pro-RW establishment? I think you need to get a little more specific. Pbfreespace (talk) 05:35, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Pb is alot of things, but right-wing is not one of them; unless you are using a very strange definition of that term. 139.130.16.222 (talk)
Perhaps you mean authoritarian? 139.130.16.222 (talk) 05:37, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
I said "relatively." As in the context of RW, which is pretty left wing. And I'm talking mainly about social issues like the Gamergate nonsense and the regressive left. There's a clear divide between editors who are, as they say, "SJWs," and those who oppose such things. That's all. Lord Aeonian (talk) 05:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Ah. Well in that, sir, you are spot-on. I generally oppose the policy proposals of the group stereotypically known as the 'SJWs', as I believe they are counterproductive and shifting societal focus away from more important issues. Pbfreespace (talk) 05:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, as do the others I mentioned, and you are generally opposed in these issues by the other group. Perhaps right wing/left wing weren't the best terms to use, maybe conservative and liberal? It's hard because it's difficult to say what is "liberal/left" and "conservative/right" with the social issues when everyone is already left compared to the general public. So I just approximated - the more pro-SJW, the more "left." I can see how it caused confusion, but you get the idea. The point is that Weaseloid is supporting a user who attacks members of the other political camp, regardless of how you define the two camps. Lord Aeonian (talk) 06:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm curious; what side do I fall on? Or am I a centrist? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 06:00, 3 June 42016 AQD (UTC)
I would actually consider you more on the left, with the other lefties. But as my response to PB indicates, it's just a vague approximation to conceptualize the fact that there are two camps RW editors generally fall in, regarding issues like the regressive left. It's not trying to actually say what you are or are not. Lord Aeonian (talk) 06:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Two camps definitely, but not left or right, I would say libertarian and authoritarian. Weaseloid is more libertarian (most older editors are). I don't think your SJW categorisation holds up to any scrutiny, memory fades, but wasn't Weaseloid fairly unenamoured with our GG page and its proponents? 139.130.16.222 (talk) 06:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Should note; Weaseloid has largely been consistent with his actions around the right of editors to criticise the wiki without being subject to sysop abuse, such as that regularly practiced by JorisEnter. He has been consistent over many, many years. Tribalism exists here, but Weaseloid is not one of the main offenders. 139.130.16.222 (talk) 06:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Well as I said, you shouldn't read too much into these. It was just to somehow present the two camps. I would hesitate to use "authoritarian" vs "libertarian," as that would cause even more issues than left vs right. Are the "SJWs" libertarians fighting for individual freedoms? Or privileged authoritarians who would gladly trample free speech to push their goals? You can see that both sides have their answers to such a question. Lord Aeonian (talk) 06:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't divide the wiki into pro and anti SJW; that's your hobby horse. Their were big rifts in the pro-SJW camp here, which boiled down to authoritarianism (lock the articles, prevent dissent, ban editors) and libertarianism (open the articles, invite dissent, empower editors). I assume the same holds true for anti-SJW (we just didn't have many here). YMMV 139.130.16.222 (talk) 06:35, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I wouldn't exactly identify as "right-wing" or "authoritarian" either.--JorisEnter (talk) 06:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

You act authoritarian though. You have a bad habit of banning, threatening, vandal-binning and trying to shut down dissent. 139.130.16.222 (talk) 06:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
"dissent" meaning "people who behave like assholes". --JorisEnter (talk) 06:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
That's precisely the excuse that every Authoritarian that ever existed told themselves when they censored people that spoke out against them. 139.130.16.222 (talk) 06:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Wait, so where do I fit in on the Left/Right spectrum here? CorruptUser (talk) 06:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Keine Ahnung. Does it matter?--JorisEnter (talk) 06:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Eh, just wondering where I stand in terms of "am I far out of line with everyone else". Everyone on the extremes thinks they are a moderate (in that they have more support than they really do, and they aren't just a batshit nutjob), but even sane, humble, super intelligent overlords of all you stupid weaklings, super rational people like myself have the human flaw in that our internal logic is a steaming pile of goatshit. So yeah, just seeing where I stand. CorruptUser (talk) 07:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

This is stupid. I don't even know what Conscience's political leanings are. I just don't like to see him/her - or anyone else - being kicked around by the likes of Joris, Pbfreespace, etc. There's a repeat pattern here. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:26, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Burn the Witch![edit]

So we've moved from paranoid theories about Conscience's and E.Wig's identity onto paranoid accusations of "political bias" by creating two boxes, one labeled "pro-SJW" and another "anti-SJW" and throwing users into them? Weaseloid is right, we're now at McCarthy-levels of witchhunt. How long until Aeonian creates The Un-RationalWiki Activities Committee and proceeds to purge all the "regressive leftists"? Typhoon (talk) 07:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I should link to a certain scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail or wonder why pointing out that E.Wig looks one helluva lot like what Concience's original account would probably be - let's start with someone returning for a random coop case after having made almost no edits for nine years.--JorisEnter (talk) 07:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Ah but the most curious question of all is the one nobody is asking, but that my old RWW backups might have an answer for (if we can remember the password). Yellow (talk) 08:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Need this?--JorisEnter (talk) 08:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
It's not in there. Maybe when the hydrocodone wears off, I'll search my large backup archive. In fact, we should stop editing altogether until that happens..... Yellow (talk) 08:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm pleading the fifth in advance :D :D :D --Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 16:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC) 16:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

The funny thing is that Typhoon's behavior actually supports my theory, she couldn't resist a political snipe (McCarthyism and the regressive left) as she fully agreed with her side. Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Should Conscience get have a mop?[edit]

This vote has been closed. Please do not add, remove or change votes.
The result of this vote was: Conscience keeps his mop.

Yes[edit]

  1. Ë. (talk) 00:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Mops to everyone! oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 01:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Conscience (talk) 06:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
    You're ineligible, dude. You need to have made over 75 edits and been here for 3 months first. Just ask Kugelschreiber, he'll tell you. Pbfreespace (talk) 23:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
    They meet those criteria. Yellow (talk) 23:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
    This guy only started editing in May. I don't care if he registered in 2011. He intentionally made this sleeper account so he could vote in coop cases. Should I register like 10 accounts and use them to vote in coop cases years from now? Pbfreespace (talk) 23:37, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
    Not my fault the rules are vague, buddy. But they're also not yours or mine to decide. If you don't like 'em, propose they be clarified. Yellow (talk) 23:45, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
    Vague does not mean "doesn't say what I want it to". This rule isn't vague. Rather, pb is just another aggressive bully who's so deathly afraid of people he disagrees with, and therefore hates, from even voting that he'll twist and lie about absurdities like 9 year old sleeper accounts created to game coop cases. Nevermind there wasn't any coop back then. What has this place come to? Are you people so deeply wrapped up in your groupthink that Pb represents the norm and would have gotten away with striking my vote in this kangaroo court? Conscience (talk) 15:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
    In my defence, it was supposed to say "aren't vague." There was a mis-type there. Yellow (talk) 21:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
    It comes as no surprise to me that Pbfreespace3 is trying to enforce a "rule" that doesn't even exist. There is no restriction whatsoever on who can vote over a sysopship candidate. Usually making someone a sysop is the decision of a single sysop. It seems pretty shit that I, as a moderator, apparently don't have this power. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
    Indeed, individual sysops are free to hand out mops at their own discretion. That doesn't mean the mob can't decide to take said mops away again, however. And since you bring it up, "pretty shit" or not, with it being a moderator's duty to monitor and manage conflicts, the liberty to exacerbate drama and empower disruptive agents is a liberty we mods preferably shouldn't make use of. If it's your opinion Joris and Pb are violating rules, nothing's stopping you from explaining their mistakes and giving them a stern warning on their respective talkpages. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 17:59, 4 June 42016 AQD (UTC)
    They have had plenty of warnings & are obviously going to keep acting like this. & There are limits how much I can monitor conflicts. E.g. I wasn't aware of JorisEnter's peremptory vandal binning of Conscience (a week ago) until a couple of days back. As for "exacerbating drama & empowering disruptive agents", what is it that Conscience has actually done or that you're afraid s/he'll do as a sysop? WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
    They've shown a propensity for pointyWikipedia disruptive edits and edit warring. Stopping the edit wars will be more of a hassle for non-mods if Conscience has a mop. 141.134.75.236 (talk)
  4. Anyone who dosen't wandalise, block/bin non-wandals or remove other people's mops should be granted and retain their mop. Hipocrite (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
    You voted in the wrong section then. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
    Where has he done these things? Hipocrite (talk) 18:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
    Here he's messing with a template, editwarring over pedantic phrasing-changes. And here, messing with an anonymous user's talkpage, impersonating another user and petulantly editwarring again. Supposedly 'funny' and outside of articlespace maybe, but it's disruptive vandalism/wandalism all the same. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  5. Absurd attempt by the groupthink crowd to overuse power. It takes two to edit war. Why assume Joris is a better editor? Tech privilege apparently. And this is an end run around the powers of every sysop. Are we going to have the same conversation every time someone sysops conscience? Block the people who do? Taba (talk) 10:24, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
    *deep sigh*--JorisEnter (talk) 12:14, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
    Reverting vandalism is as bad as committing it? Please, give me a break. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 13:04, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
    Lame attempts to discredit my vote. Joris obviously has a thing for Conscience, hence left this unarchived with no context. Sighing isn't an argument. Further, it takes two to edit war. Defining edits you don't like as vandalism doesn't make it so. Taba (talk) 15:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
    "Has a thing for conscience" - oh the irony.--JorisEnter (talk) 15:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
    Your dismissiveness is rather pathetic, and amounts to repeated ad hominems. Are you capable of a logical argument? Doesn't seem so. Just keep repeating the groupthink. You don't deserve your powers. Taba (talk) 15:44, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  6. As long as trigger happy upstarts like Joris & Pbf3 keep using the banhammer & vandal brake vindictively, their victims need the tools to defend themselves. Meanwhile, AFAICT, there is nothing disqualifying Conscience from being a sysop other than that he's said mean things to & about other editors - something which, if you pull your heads out of the ingroup-outgroup mentality, you'll notice that a hell of a lot of sysops actually do - plus a load of paranoid, ill-founded & undignified speculation about his/her identity & intentions. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 16:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
    "their victims" - this is starting to get hilarious.
    A hell of a lot of sysops call each other names - but usually, those sysops do more than just calling each other names.--JorisEnter (talk) 01:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  7. Stop abusing your sysop tools, Lead Freespace and JorisEnter.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 21:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC) 21:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
    That's... a very odd reply to the question posed. >.> 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:00, 4 June 42016 AQD (UTC)
    I forgot, that it was Lead Freespace and JorisEnter vandalbinning him.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 20:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC) 20:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
    Not entirely sure what Pb has to do with this. Also, interesting Pizzameister quote.--JorisEnter (talk) 01:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  8. They joined, haven't broken anything, except for some ruffled feathers - which is what we do on this site, what is the fuss about? Attempting to make a stupid warning template more accurate? ħumanUser talk:Human 17:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  9. This wiki has plenty of assholes with mops. One more won't kill it. Robledo (talk) 00:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
    Even those assholes have actually contributed something.--JorisEnter (talk) 00:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

No[edit]

  1. I don't think he should have a sysopship: the power to block other users and bin them. He has not yet demonstrated the goodwill to use those powers correctly or justly. Pbfreespace (talk) 00:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Sysopship supposes that you are at least capable of contributing to this website (and have done so). Conscience has made a single edit that I would count as such.--JorisEnter (talk) 00:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Petulant vandal, edit warrior and shitstirrer suprême. I could care less that they don't get along with people, but their sole reason for returning is literally to cause drama and whine about what the site used to be like. No thank you. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:06, 3 June 42016 AQD (UTC)
  4. After looking at their edits and talk page, I can't justify this user having sysop. Lord Aeonian (talk) 04:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  5. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  6. Not when he fucks around so much, and particularly on this page. I would be fucking amazed if he doesn't have a pile of alts that already have it, this behaves like a burner account - David Gerard (talk) 20:14, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  7. Contribute actual content or GTFO (pub quiz fact: no mainspace edits from this user except for one revert). Mystical alleged claims about having contributed in a distant past are meaningless and do not count. Carpetsmoker (talk) 01:23, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
    Ehh! Carpetsmoker's back!! Welcome back. (Half kidding, it's probably only a visit) Pbfreespace (talk) 01:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
    I'd like to come back. No really, I would. I care a lot about RW's mission and always will. I just can't deal with the bullshit and abuse on an emotional level... It's like this ex-girlfriend we all have: still love her, but can't deal with her kind of crazy :-/ Carpetsmoker (talk) 01:32, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
    Things were bad when you, Gooniepunk, and Mona left, but since then they've gotten even worse. Drama with AvengeroftheBoN (again), Arisboch, some old editor DMorris doxxing users and vandalizing my user page with sexually graphic imagery, and now this. I've asked Mona and now you to come back to see if things improve. It's entirely up to you, though. Pbfreespace (talk) 01:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

  1. I'm not quite sure about the mop, but we should at least unbin him.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 00:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC) 00:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
    They already out. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 01:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. "This page can be used for reporting cases of administrative abuse (abuse of sysop or moderator abilities such as blocking, page deletion, or user rights management), general abuse (such as trolling, wandalism, and personal attacks), and conflicts which cannot be solved through normal talk page discussion (such as long-standing edit wars or article content disputes)." This is none of these. Why are we voting on this? Taba (talk) 01:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
    We're resolving a case of administrative overstep (giving Conscience a mop). So, we're going to vote on whether he should have one, thus resolving the dispute. Get it? Pbfreespace (talk) 01:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
    No. The punishment should go to the admin that did the wrong thing (which hasn't been demonstrated). Not the user who got the rights. It's like punishing a crime victim, Taba (talk) 01:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
    What the actual hell are you going on about? Conscience was wrongly given a sysop. So far, no-one has tried to punish Weaseloid because no-one wants to punish him. I'm fine with that. But how in to hell is Conscience a "crime victim"? Say someone steals my car. What you're saying is he should be jailed, and get to keep my car. What the fuck?! Pbfreespace (talk) 01:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
    Again, administrative abuse is what the statement says, not overstep. The admin should be voted on, no the person sysoped. It would seem "Conscience was wrongly given a sysop." Is argument by assertion, or at least it's nonsensical why we would vote on something that is already known as valid. Taba (talk) 01:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
    Wikilawyering much? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:59, 3 June 42016 AQD (UTC)
    Labelling to avoid addressing the argument? There is no case presented against Conscience here. Taba (talk) 02:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
    More dismissing because the argument is irrelevant bickering, really. If you want to see a case against Conscience, a glance at their contribs should more than suffice. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 02:14, 3 June 42016 AQD (UTC)
    Taba, (whoever you are), I honestly don't care about Weaseloid. It doesn't matter. This is a mobocracy. What the coop does is what the coop does. That's all there really is to it. Do you have something against Weaseloid? Want to see him punished? go ahead and hold a vote if you wish, but prepare to be pwned by the "No" votes. Pbfreespace (talk) 02:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
    Pbf (whoever you are: why so arrogant, why are you so dismissive of users who aren't in your posse?). If you want to be known as a bunch of petulant jerks who punish any critics, keep it up. It's a great way to increase membership. Taba (talk) 07:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Eh, ask me again in a month. CorruptUser (talk) 07:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  4. I honestly don't see why it matters. If he doesn't get this account sysopped and has socks that are sysopped then he can always use those. If his original account has sysop tools then he can go back to that. So I don't see what difference it makes whether he is or isn't a sysop.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC) 00:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  5. I think there should be a rule along the lines of, "To qualify for sysop, you have to make ten non-shitty edits to articles." This is to weed out people who are here to stir shit, and intentionally make some edits to talk pages, the Saloon, etc. and then play rules lawyer and insist on being given sysop. The point of handing out sysop liberally is to prevent it from becoming a "superuser" class like it has on the English Wikipedia, where you have to pass a trial by fire to get it. But this doesn't mean we have to make the principle a suicide pact and hand it out to anyone who asks. I don't feel comfortable putting this in the "No" section because it's not a rule at present, so voting no on the basis of a non-existent rule doesn't make sense. --Ymir (talk) 01:45, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
    You do know that this is exactly what Conservapedia did back in the day--require "useful edits" and when they didn't like it, they blocked people. This site continues is steady decline. Taba (talk) 02:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
    You do know that's exactly what the Nazis did: they passed laws, and then imprisoned people for breaking them! How can you support government with that in mind? Also I never said anything about blocking people. --Ymir (talk) 08:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
You can still vote no based on your conscience(seewhatIdidthere?), there doesn't have to be a rule for you to vote a certain way. Pbfreespace (talk) 01:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


Isn't it interesting[edit]

Many old accounts with very few edits have suddenly come back for this coop, and even a BoN who somehow has an opinion, but yet Conscience himself is nowhere to be found. I'm not saying anything, of course. Just pointing that out. Lord Aeonian (talk) 04:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

You people are paranoid. I was out having dinner and drinks with sane people I enjoy spending time with, not compulsively hitting reload on recent changes until three a.m. Netherlands time. I have a life. You do realize how crazy it sounds to suggest that all the accounts your disagree with are the same person, right? Conscience (talk) 04:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Well that would be a useful way to troll the wiki so it isn't that much of a stretch to suggest that.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC) 04:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
This wiki doesn't need to be trolled; it does an admirable job of trolling itself. 139.130.16.222 (talk) 04:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
^^^ What the BON said. Also, I love how disagreement gets conflated with "trolling". ħumanUser talk:Human 17:32, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Y'know an unfamiliar BoN posting after someone has been accused of using multiple socks is always suspicious, especially if said BoN had stopped posting almost 3 hours ago.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC) 05:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Whatever you say swabbie, better inform the Florida State Department of Agriculture. 139.130.16.222 (talk)
I am everyone you've ever disagreed with or disliked, always lurking around the corner with a new disguise ready to ... express unpopular opinions. Conscience (talk) 05:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Aeolian didn't say that, you strawmanning troll. He said it was suspicious. In fact, because of what you said and the way you're acting right now, I bet the IP was you. But it's so stupid and pointless anyway. Just more trolling. You, my dear Sirs, have no conscience. Pbfreespace (talk) 05:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
I see you lack a certain amount of self awareness so I'll help you: read the first paragraph in this section. I'm going to break it down and explain it and the definition of hyperbole when you respond to this post by repeating yourself and calling me a troll. Conscience (talk) 06:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Procedural questions[edit]

  • When does this vote end? (It seems odd that the other related cases have been archived when this has not, with fewer overall votes, I believe.)
  • What decides this? Majority yes or no? A certain percentage or excess of votes?
  • How would the no-sysop case be enforced, since any of the large numbers of sysops could just re-sysop?

Good luck. Taba (talk) 21:32, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

To prevent an editor from getting sysop rights, a mod would have to place him in the sysoprevoke group.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 21:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC) 21:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Then it would seem that this vote is an unenforceable farce, the result of being set up incorrectly. The question of sysoprevoke is not in the question. I lack confidence in the leadership. Taba (talk) 23:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Think of it more as an opinion poll: Is giving Conscience a mop an absurd or dangerous idea? Robledo (talk) 00:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Yup.--JorisEnter (talk) 00:52, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
An opinion poll? In the chicken coop? What a mockery of justice. And from the mouth of someone who archived the case against him: conflict of interest much?
And of course it's an absurd and dangerous idea. Conscience has few edits compared to others and yet she's being paraded around like a prisoner to the gallows. Start throwing tomatoes, why don't you, Joris? Taba (talk) 02:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Well...[edit]

I just had too many pints to count in an Irish pub with people from four different countries, but drunk men tell the truth, right?

You people need to grow up.

RationalWiki is an attempt to fight pseudoscience. You know, people who claim that shaken water can cure cancer, or that the grand canyon was carved by a great flood, or whatever flavour of bullshit is in vogue this week.

There are some things I don't like about how RationalWiki does that (like its "SPOV", which in practice means like "preaching to the choir") but overall, it does a pretty decent job.

But all this infighting over what usually amounts to very little is just silly. Not just silly: stupid. Not just stupid: retarded. What purpose does it serve? I see none. It reminds me of the endless vendettas of the past, where is goal was merely to "get at" certain folk, "because .... I forgot why, but ... because!" Does it further RW's mission to fight pseudo-science with high quality information which resembles the truth the best we understand it? No. Quite the opposite: it only distracts from it. Politics are inevitable in *any* organisation with more than a handful of people, but there has to be a balance, and there has to be an end to things − not this never-ending nonsense.

Some people here have truly lost sight of RationalWiki's goal: which is to fight pseudoscience. No one will ever agree 100% on every damn detail, and that's fine. As long as it's in the right direction, it's usually fine. The details RW seems to be arguing about are like Protestants v.s. Catholics arguing over how much water to splash during baptism. No one really cares, and it's not that important. It's being self-absorbed in meaningless details or procedure.

So grow up and learn that other viewpoints are valid to and that not everyone you disagree with is the enemy.

There, I've said my piece.... Carpetsmoker (talk) 01:22, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the overall sentiment above. This case ought to be be shut (though rules don't currently permit) and we should move on. Pbfreespace (talk) 01:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
FOR THE LOVE OF THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER, ARCHIVE THIS STUPIDITY ALREADY. Taba (talk) 02:32, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, after the first two or so days this coop has been causing surprisingly little drama. The Weaseloid v. JorisEnter vote was a 10-3 landslide which was unlikely to become interesting, so it was safe to archive it. This one on the other hand has been pretty close all the time, so it may be worthwhile to wait and see what happens.--JorisEnter (talk) 08:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Archiving your own coop case is a conflict of interest and potentially admin abuse by itself. The procedural questions remain. This is bullshit. Taba (talk) 20:24, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
You forgot to mention how I am a better editor because of "tech privilege".--JorisEnter (talk) 20:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Besides, this coop had to be archived multiple times - and as you may have noticed, the first time was not by me. Both Fuzzy and 142 have archived it, so I'm curious where this "conflict of interest" due to me archiving a coop comes in.--JorisEnter (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

As a side note[edit]

Suppose the above vote becomes a tie. What would be done in that case? As far as I know, votes that end up in a tie usually return to the status quo ante or "no action", but what would that be in this case? Would it be before the Coop started (at which point Weaseloid had re-sysopped Conscience) or before all this drama started in the first place? (i.e., before Conscience got his sysop).--JorisEnter (talk) 08:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

RobSmith[edit]

RobSmith (talk · contribs · block  · rights  · rename)

I've never cooped someone before, and I take no pleasure in this, but the Community Standards say this is where to go. RobSmith is apparently very angry about Hillary, and has decided the best way to deal with this is to fling around offensive insults, including gendered stuff. Here's the latest example. Earlier instances: [9] [10]. I told him on his talk page to knock it off, but he doesn't seem to have listened. This stuff bugs me, and I'm a guy (with a reasonably impressive beard if I do say so myself!). Regarding the sexist language, how do you think this comes across to women seeing this apparently tolerated? I would hope no one thinks he should be given a pass for being an "old-timer". --Ymir (talk) 03:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

First, let me say that I am adamantly in favor of free speech. On this wiki, we should only stop speech if it is vandalism or doxxing. I may disagree with what Rob has to say, but I will defend to the death his right to say it. I think Rob's stupidity should be naked for everyone to see, and censoring or punishing him for it is not the right thing for us to do. PBfreespace (talk) 03:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Political commitments bring out the worst in people; this is not news. But I don't see how a coop case will improve anything. Let him blow off steam. And Generic Woman can stand up for herself. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 03:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
I think it's important that we collectively ensure that we don't rob anyone on this site of the sacred ability to communicate fully just how smart and mature one is as a person (see examples given). It's one thing if he edit wars, block wars, doxxes or spams (which is against the rules, period), or literally does nothing constructive and instead trolls talk pages other and pesters good editors wherever they go on the site - something like that could warrant a future demopping and/or binning or something of that kind, assuming it goes on. But from the examples given above, I see nothing to moderate in the actual statements whatsoever. I mean, we're not CP. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 04:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Being an asshole is not a reason to lose one's mop, apparently. Has not caused edit wars (yet), so I'd say that he gets top keep his mop.--JorisEnter (talk) 07:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Fuck the tone police.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 07:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC) 07:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Much as I despise him, this is not a coop case, unless the rules changed while my back was turned. Transfer his droppings to the appropriate place. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 08:52, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
^ This.--JorisEnter (talk) 08:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


Mona[edit]

She's a vulgar Sanders zealot. Immedieately after returning here, she went on a rampage, rewriting the Bernie article to remove most of the sourced critical stuff while filling it with puff pieces. Then went ballistic when I reverted it, launching vicious, misogynist abuse at me. PBF joined her in insulting me and then they both edit warred by repeatedly reinserting vandalism to the Bernie and Hillary articles. In the Hillary article mona went and erased Politifact links because they weren't sharing her incredible hatred of Hillary. Mona then went and took away my mop in order to gain an upper hand in her edit war. This is abuse. Typhoon (talk) 20:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

(EC) This isn't a Chicken Coop matter. Re the article changes, you need to talk it out on the talk pages as I (& others) keep saying. If you're too angry to do that right now, go do something else for a while. I'll keep it locked at mod level until there's been a reasonable amount of discussion, involving both sides. Re the insults & trash talk, cf the recently archived Coop Case about RobSmith; we don't need to censor this kind of language. But I do suggest that both you & Mona try to focus the dialogue on what you change about the articles, rather than trading insults at or about each other. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:08, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Weaseloid, why am I singled out for being angry? Are all the insults and reverts from mona OK? And you haven't addressed her unilateral mop stealing. Does that mean that if I'm in another edit war in the future, I should demop people to win edit wars? Because right now mona is being rewarded for her bullying. This is a valid coop case. Typhoon (talk) 21:19, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't single anyone out, & I'm not rewarding or punishing anyone. I think you both should discuss edits on the talk page, avoid personal abuse, & avoid using sysop tools such as blocking & desysoping to settle disagreements. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
You're not doing that. Mona and PBF are continuing in insulting people. And you're not addressing the mop removal abuse at all. You're letting her get away without even a slap on the shoulder. Typhoon (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Weaseloid, I'm totally willing to abstain from the Sanders/Clinton/campaign pages if Typhoon agrees to as well.---Mona- (talk) 21:10, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not abstaining from them while your vandalism remains. Typhoon (talk) 21:19, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

It does look like Mona was having a little outburst, but I wouldn't call some bad jokes "misogynistic abuse" as they were clearly not meant to demean Typhoon for gender, rather, to make fun of Typhoon's views. Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:22, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Of course you would say that, because you have a long history of calling people "regressive leftists", "SJWs" and more. It's just funny jokes to you when I'm the one being abused. Typhoon (talk) 21:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand what the regressive left has to do with this at all, you bring those up more than I do. If Mona had directed gender based insults to you as a person, that would be misogynistic. She didn't, she was caricaturing strawman forms of your views. Is that productive? No, but it's not misogynistic. Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, it was "productive" in the sense that it entertained me to wind her up (with more than a dollop of truth). But please do note, I don't poke her like that on the article talk pages, or during edit negotiations. That was my talk page, or the talk page of others.---Mona- (talk) 21:41, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
What this has to do with you is that you relish in the same abusive behavior, when you go for insults instead of discussion. I've been on the receiving end of your hatred before. And mona's insults were horrifying and out-of-the-line, you're only defending her because you enjoy seeing me down. Typhoon (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes Typhoon, everyone who disagrees with you "abuses" you. We are all, as you keep insisting, mentally ill (I guess that isn't abusive in TyphoonWorld). It's so hard to be Typhoon. Cry, poepl, for Typhoon. Pity Typhoon. Poor, poor, Typhoon. [sniffle]---Mona- (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
And again, you're doing what you do best. Insult me. Typhoon (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
I specifically said that her insults were not productive, and never denied they were insults. I'm just saying they're not misogynistic. It seems you won't tolerate this fact, because it doesn't fit into your persecution complex. Hillary will probably win the American election, so you've already won at this point. No reason to care what Mona does or to try and imagine everyone wants to see you attacked. Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
It's absolutely misogynistic to say that I'm supporting "Queen Hillary" for having a vagina. You're diminishing the abuse I've received because you yourself already labeled me as "pro-SJW". Typhoon (talk) 21:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, yes, Typhoon. I'm so so so mean to you. So is Aeonian, and so is Pb3. And all the other people whom you constantly call mentally ill. (You really have no self-awareness, do you?) (And yes, you are supporting Queen Hillary because she has a vagina. Having been asked, you have never cited specific policy reasons for a progressive to support Hillary Clinton. So yup, it's that she's a grrl.)---Mona- (talk) 22:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Mona, you don't decide why people support people. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 22:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Well Narky, rather obviously, I do. Why, for much of my life I've drawn conclusions based both on what people argue, and on what they won't address. Moreover, I've observed that any number of smart, logical people go about things the same way.---Mona- (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Im just going to give my two cents on the issue. Both typhoon and mona sling insults with abandon, and are both extreme zealots. Both of them refuse to take things to the talk page as ,and both of them seem to cause flame wars at every opportunity. Both are very similar, but are normally on different sides of the argument. Something needs to be done about the constant flame wars and edit warring, whether it requires any sort of punishment or not, i would much rather it didn't. Bubba41102The place where you can scream at me 22:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Bubba, what you said abut me is utterly false. I do not refuse to take edits to the talk page. That is simply an utter falsehood. As for insults, no, I do not "sling them with abandon." It so happens I find Typhoon particularly repugnant, and have made no secret of that. But I generally do not traffic in name-calling and call her what she is purely because I no longer will pretend to have an iota of respect for her, for I do not. And really, how amusing that you and others now pour out to object to name-calling. You see, I've learned that that is not frowned upon here. Or did you simply miss all of that?---Mona- (talk) 23:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
One only needs to look at the collapsable below to prove that what i am saying is not false. I was just giving my two cents on the issue. Bubba41102The place where you can scream at me 02:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Isn't she an anti-semite?брэндэн (talk) 06:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

This is the second time that mona has demopped me just to get her way in a edit war. Because of the mods unwillingness to punish her for this flagrant abuse, other editors can look forward to one day being on the receiving end of her toxic behavior too. She sees Hillary shills in everyone who questions here and even before the current fracas other editors were saying that they're avoiding editing "mona's articles" out of exhaustion with dealing with her. Typhoon (talk) 07:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Saloon Bar[edit]


Suggestion to stop this[edit]

I am gone for a weekend and all hell breaks lose...

I suggest that all of those who did the shit that's now being discussed here agree to abstain from any topic related to Bernie, Hillary, the 2016 election or Emails on pain of being banned for all eternity if they violate it. Effective immediately after consensus on this has been reached. Besides that, I really hope this whole thing ends some time before November. Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 23:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Pages that everyone can agree with[edit]

Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 00:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The Sanders page fails to mention that he has been eliminated from the race. Or something. So at least one person does not agree with that one. The Clinton page does not mention that she is a corporate shill. Or something. That makes two people who disagree with some page.--JorisEnter (talk) 00:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Better and better. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 01:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Barring indictment of Hillary, he has not been eliminated. nobsBern baby bern 19:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Stop being fuckwits[edit]

[mod hat on] I've just demopped and sysoprevoked Mona for yet again demopping someone she's in an edit war with. Fucksakes. I strongly suggest she not be remopped without clear consensus to do so - David Gerard (talk) 09:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

"Yet again" - does this refer to Typhoon? I can't find anything in her logs on demopping someone else.--JorisEnter (talk) 10:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
What are you trying to say? Lord Aeonian (talk) 10:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Well he says that he has demopped Mona for "yet again" demopping someone. Was Typhoon the first and has she demopped someone else afterwards, or has she done this before and is Typhoon the "yet again"?--JorisEnter (talk) 10:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
seek and ye shall find. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 11:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Ah, yes. That said, Sandflapjack deserved to be demopped.--JorisEnter (talk) 11:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
And further back. It's an ongoing pattern, and not what sysop is for. I would be delighted to see an editing dispute involving Mona that doesn't descend into a PCB dumpster fire, and it may happen in my lifetime - David Gerard (talk) 14:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
No I didn't. There's literally no difference between this case and the one between me and mona. You people keep letting her off the hook for major shit while others take a cactus dildo for stepping on someones toes. Sandflapjack (talk) 23:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, she's been demopped. So now the drama will end and... bwuahaha drama ending, hah! CorruptUser (talk) 23:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Unbin me![edit]

Please unbin me! I have done no wrong! Mona is now exposed as the lying monster she has always been, which means I was right to begin with! Unbin me! Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Serious.gif (although I'm not entirely sure if you're serious, it's still quite hilarious)--JorisEnter (talk) 22:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! Avenger/Pizzameister's back!!!! Beg for me little man, BEG FOR ME!! MUAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!111!1!1!1eleventy PBfreespace (talk) 22:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I am serious, why am I even in the "vandal" bin to begin with? By the way, I am still barred from editing more than once every thirty minutes... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I tried to parole you but a bug prevents that. PBfreespace (talk) 23:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
It's not a bug. Weaseloid put him back in. Please check the Recent Changes page. Nerd (talk) 23:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Why on earth would you do that PBF? Stop dicking around with your sysop abilities; you've been told enough times. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Avenger is in the bin and remains in the bin for persistent fuckwittery whenever he's unbinned. Making him have to actually think about his one edit every 30 minutes has so far been the correct answer - David Gerard (talk) 11:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Why don't you put Mona in the bin? Surely if I deserve to "have to think" about my edits, Mona does too. And after some time you might wish to take people you binned out of the bin to see whether they have reformed their ways... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 12:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

It is evident from your first post that you fail to grasp even basic logic. ("Mona is lying -> I am right" ?) Now fuck off.--JorisEnter (talk) 12:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Good post! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Does the bin never end?[edit]

Is there any way to be let out of the bin? The joke blocks at Conservapedia at least end after four years. Binning seems to be forever and ever and ever until the world ends... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Show me what good edits you have made recently. StickySock (talk) 14:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Probably not many due to this annoying 30 minute wait.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 14:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC) 14:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Most contributions this year were on the coop. And he has failed to make any contributions of any sort outside the coop since January. So no, bin he stays. StickySock (talk) 14:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
What the sock said (Sticky, that is).--JorisEnter (talk) 14:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Catch 22[edit]

The only way to appeal the bin is via the coop. And when an appeal is brought to the coop, the answer invariably is that the last edits have only been to the coop. Where has the old spirit of this wiki gone that would allow the benefit of the doubt and second chances? What would you lose in unbinning me and me turning out to produce well written articles on trains or Israel. Or Israeli trains... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Final warning.
You are to do the following:
1) Make useful contributions to the wiki
2) Avoid complaining about your punishment
If adhere to 1 and 2, I will Unbin you. No there will not be a set time, its whenever I or the other editors believe you aren't a lost cause. If you adhere to 2 but not 1, well, no harm lost, you aren't adding anything. If you adhere to 1 but not 2, you will remain binned. If you do not adhere to either, you will be banned rather than binned.
Understood? StickySock (talk) 19:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
You cannot complain about the criminal justice system of the US when what you are doing is essentially the same. Punish first ask questions later. When explicitly asked to give an opportunity for reformation, you set nigh impossible conditions - how is one to show better contributions if they are limited to once every half hour? Some people have jobs and private lives and stuff. But of course you can afford losing contributors, you are winning them anew all the time, aren't you? I would like to enhance the coverage on many subjects, but alas... Greetings to my buddy and meatpuppet. I will not at that time reveal who she is, but she knows who... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
The problem, Avenger, is that you are violating the 90/10rule against excessive talk, talk, talk. Start making useful edits now, or we will make you an unperson! Yellow (talk) 22:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
For fucks sake my main was one of the VERY FEW people arguing on your behalf. You were binned after MONTHS of fighting. I WANTED you to come back out of the bin, to prove you could be useful. But no, you can't do that can you? YOU HAVE HUMILIATED ME FOR EVER DOING ANYTHING TO DEFEND YOU. You have made few if any useful contributions since then. Don't complain about the time; you can damn well make a major contribution even if waiting a half hour before making another one. Your problem is you are too busy whining about your punishment than actually doing anything at all to deserve redemption. But if after everything, you can't do anything besides spending your time creating new coop cases just to bitch about your predicament, well, I'm sorry, you are choosing your own damn fate. HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU BEEN TOLD YOU WOULD BE PAROLED IF YOU CONTRIBUTED TO THE WIKI? Wait, don't answer that. Just fucking contribute or fuck off. StickySock (talk) 20:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I'm stepping in here as well. Avenger, seriously. Let. It. Go. An edit once every 30 minutes isn't supposed to be a massive hindrance; it's there to stop edit wars and make vandalism boring and time consuming. I've made quite a number of useful edits in the past couple months even when my average daily edit is something like 7 or 8, really significantly less if you take out all the WIGO and Talk posts I've made. Hell, in May this year, I only made 13 article edits. Here's the thing: if you can't do quantity, at least try for quality. What I do sometimes in other wikis and blogs is write up the article, or all the edits or additions for an article, in Notepad, and then copy them over in one large edit (being sure to preview changes first). I originally did this in order to avoid losing a lot of work in case I accidentally hit "Back" or clicked a link, but it's a strategy that could really help your case (alongside not continually making things like this, especially after dropping off the face of the earth for five months).
Sticky, that being said, it does look like Avenger had been making a number of useful edits before he vanished in January (once you hide all the Talkpage/COOP edits at least). I think a ban wouldn't be necessitated just yet. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 20:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Christ. Someone tell the kid the truth. Avenger: forget contributions. You're fucked unless you show some self-awareness and contrition. There appears to be a strong consensus that you're an exceptional pain in the arse. Try acknowledging that, and then making some pretty fucking convincing noises that you intend not to be one in future. Robledo (talk) 20:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Good post!--JorisEnter (talk) 22:15, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I would also strongly recommend avoiding controversial articles for a while. Even if your contributions are worthy, stop giving everyone a headache. StickySock (talk) 20:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=RationalWiki:Chicken_coop/Archive49&oldid=2019971"