RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive50

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

How can we make this not happen[edit]

Just thought I'd pop in with a solution[edit]

Nuke all politics-articles. Salt the earth and repeat. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 23:32, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd vote for this, if I could vote. Focus on the issues themselves if you want clarity. Jagulard (talk) 00:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Yawn, this again. (talk) 00:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Can't say I'm not consistent, here! ^_^ FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 00:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
FCP, I'm really getting tired of your half-sarcastic unreasonably broad and ridiculous catch-all proposals. It bothers me even more that people take them seriously. "let's just get rid of every controversial article we've ever made that has 2 legitimate sides!". Such a malignantly vacuous shitty proposal. PBfreespace (talk) 00:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
It's a good idea. We're best at debunking stuff that doesn't have two "legitimate sides." Lord Aeonian (talk) 01:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
"We're best at X and not as good at Y, therefore we should stop doing Y altogether." Explain how that makes any sense. PBfreespace (talk) 01:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
You're aware regressive left is a blatantly political article, right? ;) (talk) 01:55, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Indeed I am. Lord Aeonian (talk) 02:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely nothing missional about Hilary Clinton or Bernie Sanders articles. RW is great at talking about things such as creationism, flat earthism etc. Politics (outside of authoritarianism) and morality articles end up magnets for editors such as Pb / Typhoon who don't let their inability to form coherent arguments dent their unshakable belief that they are right. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
I still fail to understand why you would want to nuke such political topics as Creationism (which is firmly embedded in American politics). --Castaigne2 (talk) 02:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I wasn't aware creationism had "two legitimate sides."Lord Aeonian (talk) 02:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Politics does not require that there be two legitimate sides. Only that there be sides. Legitimacy is defined by the political winner. --Castaigne2 (talk) 03:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
So...creationism has merit? Is that what you're saying? Lord Aeonian (talk) 03:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Nope, not at all. Look, and I mean this seriously, if you don't understand how political science and resulting politics works, read up on it. Legitimacy in politics has nothing to do with scientific merit, factual statements, or anything resembling those things. Legitimacy in politics is determined solely by who wins and who writes the history books. --Castaigne2 (talk) 03:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I'd support this in principle, but I'm not sure there's clean division, e.g. with regards to Trump's veering frequently into conspiracy theory and dictatorship. Plenty of other politicians get involved in demagoguery and fundamentalist nuttery. Bongolian (talk) 03:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
It's very simple - are they involved in politics? Then the article must either be deleted or scrubbed of all political reference. Of course, that means that backers heavily involved in the political process, like David Barton, would have to be deleted entirely. --Castaigne2 (talk) 03:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
While I agree with you that there *is* a problem, I'm not sure if throwing our hands in the sky and shouting "let's just give up" is really a solution. I feel that with more decisive and firmer moderator conflict resolution RW could go a long way at avoiding endless drama/edit wars/etc.
As I've said some months ago, it is *exactly* on topics where there is no clear consensus that it's important to "make a difference". Any masturbating Baboon with more than two brain cells to rub together can see that Ray Comfort and his Crocoduck are a laughable pile of nonsense; no one really needs RationalWiki for that. But on topics where things are more murky, such as libertarianism for example, RW can "make a difference" in really separating out the bullshit from the valid arguments.
Unfortunately, too often people are out here to "debunk" something they don't like. Sometimes rightly so, sometimes not so much (I have been guilty of this as well)... Carpetsmoker (talk) 08:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
This vote has been closed. Please do not add, remove or change votes.
The result of this vote was: Keep the political articles.

Votes of support[edit]

  1. Get rid of political/social articles which do not have a clear bias of evidence. For instance, it's a clear fact that Sexual Bolshevism is nonsense. It's not a clear fact that SHILLARY CLINTON IS WORSE THAN BUSH HURR. There are many on the left who disagree, and it's not a case when one side is "right" or "wrong." Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. I'm still not sure how to clearly divide these articles, but it's still a better direction for RW than the current one. Mocking conspiracies and pseudoscience, RW is very good at (even the critics agree). Mocking mainstream politics, far less so. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 00:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. I think I voted for this once before. Big YES. Stick to objective truth. It's what we do best. – Sarah (HH) 00:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  4. #typhoonorbust
  5. --Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 10:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC) 10:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Votes of opposition[edit]

  1. I oppose. FCP, splitting RationalWiki into 2 different wikis, one with edit-warring and political bias and one without, only splits the problem into 2. It doesn't get rid of it. Frankly, the problem will never be solved. There will always be edit warring over contentious articles by people with far too much time on their hands too great a focus on single issues. RationalWiki should remain a unified place, and I think splitting it into 2 parts would decrease morale and willingness to contribute. You would basically be insinuating that RW has a giant flaw that necessitates segregating all of the contentious political articles from everything else, when the flaw isn't even that big or important. PBfreespace (talk) 00:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
    Wait, what? No one said split the wiki. We mean get rid of the topics and never let them come back. Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
    "I'm still not sure how to clearly divide these articles, but it's still a better direction for RW than the current one." "clearly divide" Whether you take that to mean split or not, I oppose the motion either way. You said "Get rid of political/social articles which do not have a clear bias of evidence." That's pretty broad. I understand it's only a talk page comment, but you should specify so I know exactly what you mean. I don't think articles like Israel/Palestine or Bernie/Hillary should be deleted. It's stupid to erase over a year of work because "waahhh, it's controversial and might make us look bad, waahhh!!!". PBfreespace (talk) 00:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
    The problem isn't that they're controversial, it's that the're a source of constant wars which will never end because neither side is right or wrong. I think the Gamergate, Bernie/Hillary, Palestinian, etc articles should be removed. "Over a year's worth of work" is just the sunk cost fallacy. Lord Aeonian (talk) 01:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
    That's an extreme position. Wanting to delete pages just because they're a source of constant edit warring is easily solved by this sleek and cool tool called, wait for it... the protect page function! This function stops people from editing a page if it is becoming a source of conflict. Also, they're another cool think admins can do, which is called blocking: see, if a user spends most of their time edit warring, they can be temp-blocked to correct behavior, or permabanned if the can't stop their disruptive behavior. It's amazing, I know.
    We don't need to delete these pages. We can simply protect them and temp-ban repeat offenders. PBfreespace (talk) 01:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
    Except we can't. We can't just ban repeat offenders, otherwise Mona and Typhoon would have been banned long ago. I looked back over the Ryulong guy, RW couldn't even ban him over that My Little Pony madness. Lord Aeonian (talk) 02:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
    I concur. Nerd (talk) 01:53, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Why is it that Wikipedia can have articles on potentially controversial topics but we can't? Isn't our purpose thinking rationally and engaging in nuanced discussion? Nerd (talk) 00:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
    Wikipedia have a completely different set of rules that head off these situations, such as no original research, and faithfully replicating sources in articles (mistakes and all). This brings along problems, but it also makes resolving arguments on these topics a little easier. This is the price that RW pays for allowing people to think for themselves and critically engage with sources, but it could be mitigated by sticking to the mission (or thereabouts). (talk) 02:57, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. lock down bernie/hillary for the next 6 months. The other political stuff usually hashed out in talk, so it can stay. There seems to be general agreement on about 85% of it. Petey Plane (talk) 01:28, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
    I think that's a pretty extreme position. I'd say unprotect it, while maintaining a close watch. Then ban if another edit war erupts. PBfreespace (talk) 01:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  4. Life without poitics would be like a day without methadone. nobsBern baby bern 01:41, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
    Says RobSmith, anti-drug loon. {{User:Pbfreespace3/sig}} (talk) 01:53, 22 June 2016 (UTC)01:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  5. Everything is political. --Castaigne2 (talk) 02:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  6. Feel free to leave with your bro to his failed wiki. Hipocrite (talk) 02:41, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
    And how is that going these days? --Castaigne2 (talk) 02:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
    Never mind, looked it up. Failed completely, I see. Well, that explains his recent tantrums of bitters. --Castaigne2 (talk) 03:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  7. Is blatantly defeatist. Would be an enormous hassle to even begin executing. Would remove 60%-80% of our articles from the site, which would kill almost all activity. This wouldn't save the site, it'd do the exact opposite. (talk) 02:51, 22 June 42016 AQD (UTC)
    One would almost suspect that is FCP's intent, with the constant suggestions. --Castaigne2 (talk) 03:05, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  8. This remains an incredibly stupid idea on every level - David Gerard (talk) 07:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  9. Unworkable, bizarrely extreme response to the real problems: you need meaningful editing and editorial guidelines if you want to be able to rein in tendentious editing. Even trolls like Kiwi Farms and ED have more helpful rules than you do. Oh and it would help to look within and accept that you like it when there's drama. Conscience (talk) 12:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Ban FCP and the people who post on this page the most[edit]

You're the real troublemakers. Conscience (talk) 12:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

In case anyone is wondering[edit]

See the main article on this topic: Essay:RationalWiki and politics

Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 03:21, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Fuzzy not to bring up his proposal to ban politics articles yet again for at least another 12 months[edit]

This vote has been closed. Please do not add, remove or change votes.
The result of this vote was: Probably no.


  1. David Gerard (talk) 07:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Only if David promises to personally handle every single iota of drama that said articles create. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 07:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
    (gets out Extra-Loving Banstick of Fascism) - David Gerard (talk) 09:48, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
    ELBF -- now with extra Hitler! Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 09:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
    Not the original with extra Mussolini? Porca madonna!!--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 10:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC) 10:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Leave it to your resident Special Snowflake to keep up the black and white thinking and make more pointless sweeping proposals. Conscience (talk) 12:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  4. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


  1. It's a good proposal. Lord Aeonian (talk) 08:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. It's a bad idea, stop being a wanker (I dunno who the wanker is, too much hassle to go through the page history).--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 10:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC) 10:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Frankly banning discussion of a proposal is never good, even if the proposal is Bullshit. Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 14:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  4. People have the right to talk and write about any topics they choose. Nerd (talk) 15:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


The irony of voting on this. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Enough damage has been done[edit]

In my 1+ year at RationalWIki, I have never started a coop before (nor ever been the focus of one). However, due to the gravity of the situation (foreplay avaliable here), the issue of Typhoon's documented, ceaseless and particularly toxic edit warring is hereby brought to the coop and the mercy of the mob.

My original complaint, as filed to moderator FCP's talk page earlier today;

Typhoon is, all by herself, relentlessly edit warring with either a minority or perhaps even the majority of active editors on this site (!), including (among others) currently Owlman, Nerd, JorisEnter and now myself, over the course of weeks. All the while being outright abusive and toxic in the block logs and edit notices (it's seriously no fun at all - I don't plan to ever threaten to LANCB, I don't want to leave, but it honestly ruins my fun editing RW, and I can't sit here and make myself sad.). I mean, literally - scroll a few pages looking at her contributions. Now look at mine, or Joris'. Again, scroll a few pages. We actually do meaningful things, the vast majority of our edits never going contested by anyone as they are generally quite agreeable (and me and Joris are - for June as well - the 2 most active editors on this site after a bot!). We rarely, if ever, even participate in edit wars, never mind start them. We rarely if ever abuse people in block logs or edit notices. (Consult the Contributions and block log entries for Typhoon and us). Typhoon does nothing but edit war, and is treating us other editors (especially us non-belligerent, non-abrasive problem solvers and workhorses) like shit in block logs and edit notices. This is not acceptable. (She even blocked me for five whole minutes today as part of her all-out war of attrition. There was no need for that, she just wanted to fuck with me (as she does on a regular basis with other editors, too). And the truth is, I didn't even know how to unblock myself. I was just left there to rot by an abusive edit-warrior. By accident I found the unblock button trying to edit my talkpage asking for sanity). This has to end, one way or the other.

Now then. The Sanders/Hillary talk pages have been locked before and it didn't work. The problem lies with a single user - Typhoon. Besides, Typhoon's edit warring has now spread outside of these pages and onto multiple fronts, preventing several of our editors from actually contributing to the site and mission. It's only Typhoon that stands in the way of edits multiple users support, ignoring mob rule or talk pages, winning only by virtue of being by far the most willing to simply edit war and be nasty in edit/block log comments until the other has exhausted their time and energy getting nowhere. While I support mod locking the pages for quite some time, this is not sufficient. Typoon has been acting in a way none of us should condone. Let's not, for the sake of all those of us who don't resort to edit warring and abuse so willingly.

I once more direct everyone to her contributions before voting; please ask yourself if this behaviour can be expected to stop on its own considering how far back it goes. Thank you and Goat bless. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I would just like to ask everyone to think carefully before they vote. In addition, please also take a careful look at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Nerd (talk). Have a nice day! Nerd (talk) 01:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh no not the recent changes feed! Truly this is the worst offender of all. Off with her head! Sandflapjack (talk) 02:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Please, Sandflapjack! This is no joking matter. What I meant to say was that this Chicken Coop creates more drama than useful content and must end as soon as possible. Nerd (talk) 02:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Feel free to ask the proposer to withdraw his proposal, as it appears to be failing to reach the 2/3 margin required. Hipocrite (talk) 02:57, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Unless the proposal is to ban Typhoon - which it isn't - no two-thirds majority is required.
@Nerd: Ignore Sandflapjack. She's still butthurt over getting demopped for edit warring two months ago.--JorisEnter (talk) 08:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


Discipline Typhoon in some way or another[edit]

  1. Typhoon has in my opinion completely forfeited the right (and ability) to have a mop, using the tools and responsibility entrusted to block other editors to win edit wars she herself began. Furthermore, it is my opinion that she has earned herself a stint in the vandal bin, giving her a chance to more carefully weigh her choices. Clearly, being able to make changes at a moment's notice has completely gone to her head. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    Considering the extreme pro-Berniebro, anti-Shrillary edits of you and the aforementioned aggrieved parties, sorry, but no. Maybe if ya'll were involved in trashing BOTH candidates, but otherwise it's too lopsided. Let me know when you show Berno for the fucking loon he is, though, and I'll change my vote. --Castaigne2 (talk) 20:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    Believe it or not, but I'm actually not here in defense of Bernie (from the discussion that led to this coop). And I'll reiterate right now that his bid for president was up long ago, and that I'd be willing to agree with much of the criticism against Bernie right now. However, that is not the issue here. I'm not part of any Sanders cabal, (I've even read what you've been writing in the Saloon bar on the role of Trump voting, with some interest). The issue is that Typhoon has proven herself capable of sustained edit warring outside of issues even remotely related to Bernie or Hillary. While I am not trying to "recruit" your opinion, I hope that this will be enough to make you reconsider, and if so, that you will stand by your own word (as you've always done, afaik). All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    You're not in defense of Bernie? That's not what the aggregate edits of your aggrieved parties say. Anyway, you can drop the flattery and schmooze - it never impresses me. I expect that if you win this, we'll see a whole lot of "Shrillary is a corrupt genocidal CORPORATE WHORE who bangs everyone that votes TEAM VAGINA. On Vince Foster's CORPSE." edits while white-washing the shit out of Sanders. So no, vote won't change - I believe in some measure of balance. --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    As long as people participate in the vote and cast theirs honestly and with prudence, I can't complain. I still believe that exact outlook will result in an overweight agreeing that we should discipline - it is, after all, the mobocracy that rules. I will continue doing exactly the same thing I've done before all this regardless of how this vote goes, and that is: staying far away from the Bernie and Hillary articles. I have no stake in them and I'm not interested in the edit warring; I'm against it generally. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    [1][2][3][4]. Would you say you are mistaken or dishonest about your "staying far away from the Bernie and Hillary articles?" Hipocrite (talk) 22:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    Such a vast amount of dates and edits! Let's see... The most recent one is from July 20th - yesterday - maybe I have been at those articles for quite a while after all? And the earliest one is from... July 20th. Ok, so maybe I haven't exactly been going hard at those articles. How many individual edits to those articles do you think Typhoon has made, by the way? Four in total? And the first two edits were (as per edit summaries) done with the support of 3 other editors, against 1 editor who disregarded the mobocracy (as always). The latter two edits were firstly the insertion of an internal link, since the article mentioned something we could link to internally, and secondly - quite obviously just a friendly talkpage joke. Now, could somebody pile up Typhoon's edits to these articles please? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    He hasn't denied being involved in those articles, you have. The dishonesty is the problem here - you're lying about your involvement, lying about your motivation, lying about the rules. Lie, after lie, after lie. Stop fucking lying. Hipocrite (talk) 22:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    Well, you're certainly doing all you can to ensure that everybody can plainly see how objective and generally calm people you and Typhoon are. And you accuse me of "canvassing" and of doing the bidding of "the Bernieboys" or whatever - and yet you're the one lambasting people with your abrasive claims and unwarranted comments as soon as anybody writes anything on this page (extending that same favour to people's talkpages). Thanks for proving my points for me. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    Are you really going to take the fact that I think you are literally the scum of the earth and use it to prove that someone else, who hasn't even commented here, should be punished because I think you are an asshole? What a totally dishonest move. I have never said a thing about "Bernieboys," you dishonest serial liar. Hipocrite (talk) 22:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    Right back at you, fam. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    If you find one instance of me writing "Bernieboys," I'll ban him myself. Hipocrite (talk) 22:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Typhoon's abrasiveness and abuse of her Sysop tools have made it very difficult to maintain a positive environment here at RationalWiki, one that assumes good faith. Nerd (talk) 20:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    Hey, were you canvassed to this discussion? Do we do that now? Sounds like fun! Hipocrite (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    Nerd is mentioned by name in the original coop complaint and was rightly summoned with a {{coop notice}}, per the coop rules and recommendations (as was Typhoon, for the record). Not that a qualitative and observant contributor like Nerd would've missed this bulge of activity in the Recent Changes feed. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    Not fun at all. I would rather be making positive contributions rather than participating in a Chicken Coop. Nerd (talk) 00:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
    Tell me about it... the banal suggestion that cooping Typhoon is some kind of celebratory act or "victory" couldn't be further from the truth. My hands were bound by the audacity of her sabotage of various articles and against numerous editors. And I repeat: regardless of how this vote fares, I will be doing precisely what I have always done, and that is getting right back to making useful contributions to pages far away from the Sanders and Hillary quagmire. I didn't come here because I participate in any edit warring over them, and I don't plan to start now. This is about one user being stripped of the ability to perpetuate an arms race of bad editing practices. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
    That's not part of the rules or recommendations, you serial dissembler. Hipocrite (talk) 22:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    I don't know what that means, but your very willingness to call me things betrays a lot of frustration at the attention Typhoon's behaviour is getting. Bad sign. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, but you are ineligible as per RW:CS#Voting.--JorisEnter (talk) 20:30, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    What I am missing? I have been a contributor for well over a year and made more than 75 edits. Nerd (talk) 20:39, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    M'apologies. Didn't know your account had been around here for a while.--JorisEnter (talk) 20:39, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    No worries. Nerd (talk) 20:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    Looking through your edits, I find it difficult to believe that I didn't notice you in RC at some point.--JorisEnter (talk) 20:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Typhoon has been edit warring with at least four different editors in the last week or so. The only reason she got away with this is because Mona "LANCB'd" for the third time, which temporarily ended the drama. It is clear that Typhoon is the one being disruptive here, and disciplining her would remove much of the problem.--JorisEnter (talk) 20:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    Hey, were you canvassed to this discussion? Do we do that now? Sounds like fun! Hipocrite (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    JorisEnter is mentioned by name in the original coop complaint and was rightly summoned with a {{coop notice}}, per the coop rules and recommendations (as was Typhoon, for the record). Not that a qualitative and observant contributor like Joris would've missed this bulge of activity in the Recent Changes feed. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    That's not part of the rules or recommendations, you serial dissembler. Hipocrite (talk) 22:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    I don't know what that means, but your very willingness to call me things betrays a lot of frustration at the attention Typhoon's behaviour is getting. Bad sign. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    What is a "serial dissembler?" Is it going to take our jobs? Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  4. --Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 21:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC) 21:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  5. Do it. This must be pretty bad for me to be siding with Arisboch. PBfreespace (talk) 21:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    --WMS (talk) 21:30, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    Sorry, per RW:CS#Voting you do not have the franchise, as your account was created April 2, 2016. ([5]) Hipocrite (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    Sorry about my mistake. Wow, I thought I've been here longer than I actually am. Anyway, I'll come back in a month (or so) when I'm old enough to vote, haha--WMS (talk) 22:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  6. Typhoon's zealotry is well known. Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:47, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  7. 'Conditional yes. Punishment should be fairly light with a warning to knock it off. If behavior continues, increasing punishment. Just try to avoid the drama, people. CorruptUser (talk) 00:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  8. I find myself agreeing here with editors I rarely agree with. Typhoon has gone too far for too long. It's practically abuse and we certainly shouldn't enable it. – Sarah (HH) 00:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  9. (talk) 16:40, 22 June 42016 AQD (UTC)
  10. I wasn't sure if this was the best decision but Typhoon has edit-warred with multiple users on multiple pages before Hillary Rodham Clinton v Bernie Sanders occurred such as, Regressive left and Richard Dawkins.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC) 00:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  11. I feel like pissing off assholes today. Carpetsmoker (talk) 19:21, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  12. She's impossible. Even when we agree, she's impossible. On Gamergate pages I had the temerity to agree with our opponents that Typhoon posts lengthy quotes that take up too much article space, and when I made the same objection about her lengthy quote vis-a-vis the Sanders article she had an even worse hissy fit because on that article we disagreed. She's driven reasonable editors away from articles -- ones I don't necessarily agree with -- with her heavy-handed warring. She cannot be reasoned with on article talk pages because she incessantly calls people all kinds of names rather than address the substance of the different views.---Mona- (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Do nothing[edit]

  1. Boo fucking hoo. Where's the abuse? Hipocrite (talk) 20:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    Here, here, and here. Edit warring by a single person, against multiple editors, and despite many talk page arguments.--JorisEnter (talk) 20:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    And here, too. Nerd (talk) 20:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    Those are article histories. It's not hard to link to abusive edits - for instance, if he were edit warring to insert GamerGate image macros, or edit warring to reinsert duplicate sentences to vandalize articles, or something. Was he doing that? Hipocrite (talk) 20:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    She or he was edit-warring against consensus and launched insults against those who disagree with her or him. Nerd (talk) 20:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    Ok, but was he edit-warring against image macros and vandalism, or was he edit warring against other edit warriors? I mean, perhaps we should get rid of all 4 of you. Hipocrite (talk) 20:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    The only abuse I can cite would be Typhoon's use of blocks which is something Weaseloid disliked when he said "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" during Mona's coop case.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 21:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC) 21:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    Oh, did he block someone who was unable to unblock themselves over anything other than vandalism/obviously unhelpful edits? If so, I'm going to move my vote. Could you link to that, please? Hipocrite (talk) 21:24, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. --Castaigne2 (talk) 20:47, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Typhoon's edits to the Clinton and Sanders articles seem sound to me. The "consensus" that RBP refers to is non-existent. Robledo (talk) 21:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    I think that should edited to "consensus of Bernie-stans". --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  4. Consensus here seems to be what the bullies say it is, regardless of the merits. Because mob rule. It's about numbers, right? Typhoon is definitely an edit warrior, but also less trouble in general than some of the people loving that there's another coop case today. You all should think about devoting yourselves to coming up with helpful editing and editorial guidelines. The free wheeling atmosphere that barely worked years ago no longer does. Conscience (talk) 23:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    Pointless drama. If the punishment of "stern warning, with stronger punishment in future if behavior continues" is offered, I'll switch my vote to that. Otherwise, no. CorruptUser (talk) 23:57, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    You are most welcome to vote yes with the stipulation of that specific disciplinary action. The first step here is gathering more "yes" than "no" votes for any type of disciplinary action (as opposed to doing nothing), the second step is to actually formalize what this disciplinary action should be, out of all things one may suggest. The one you suggest above is then the one you should suggest. So please, move your vote with that as your earmarked punishment. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
    Reverend Black Percy specifically recommended the penalties. So please reconsider. Nerd (talk) 00:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
    I recommended what I would advocate. However, CorruptUser (and Nerd), I have now changed the headline of the "Yes" vote to reflect that we've yet to determine what action is to be taken. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
    Alright I've changed my vote. — Unsigned, by: CorruptUser / talk / contribs
  5. I'm not seeing that this case isn't just edit-warring under another strategy - David Gerard (talk) 08:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
    The Coop is for long-standing edit wars which cannot be resolved by normal talk page discussion, as said above. This is a pretty obvious case of edit warring by a single user.--JorisEnter (talk) 09:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
    You know, as someone new, I've been reading through all the links to see what's going on, and I'm inclined to agree with David here. From where I stand, not knowing the history of everyone involved, it certainly looks like four of you are ganging up on Typhoon in order to get rid of any pro-Clinton posts she makes. As for the "consensus" that some have mentioned, I see no evidence of that at all beyond a shared preference for Sanders. Jagulard (talk) 14:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
    @David Gerald: Perhaps it would be more helpful if you take a look at these talk pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Nerd (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  6. This is a classic appeal to mob scenario. Just because the general consensus says that the articles are fine and should never be edited with a critical eye, doesnt mean that it is a correct or factual way to handle it. Typhoon certainly isnt the only person that is looking at it critically either, she isnt a minority in this. countless others with less privilege then mona or owlman have made an attempt to edit it, but typhoon is the only one willing to not get bullied into a corner and actually persist with removing badly sourced and anecdotal articles and quotes. The fact that this is still a problem with rationalwiki really bothers me. I know that we joke about it and toss around the "i thought this was RATIONALwiki" article, we still have a standard as a skeptics wiki, and we are going against our very purpose by punishing typhoon for nothing. Sandflapjack (talk) 02:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  7. Ë. (talk) 18:08, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
    Conscience feels the urge to send in his obvious sock...--JorisEnter (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
    Can you detail some of the evidence so I remember for the future why this user is a sock? PBfreespace (talk) 19:35, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
    Bump. PB (talk) 19:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


  1. Sock. StickySock (talk) 20:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. I'm never involved in the drama anymore. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    Me neither. Until Typhoon's edit war spread to me. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    Feeling left out? I should make a template for a random YouTube insult. "You are such a (Rand from shit, douche, drama, butt, ass, Dick, pussy, anus, smegma, etc) - (Rand from lord, munch, fuck, head, cow, goat), you should shove a (Rand from cactus, chainsaw, dildo, hedgehog, salmon) in your (Rand from ear, nose, eye socket, urethra, face hole). I had (Rand from sex, dinner, orgy, fistfight) with your (Rand from cat, mother, goat, sister, daughter, brother)! StickySock (talk) 21:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    I think part of it is that I am always baffled when my edits aren't reverted. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    Would you like to reduce the amount of unwanted drama? If so, please consider voting 'yes'. Nerd (talk) 01:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
    Of course it would also reduce the amount of wanted drama, no? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
    I'm not quite sure what you are talking about. As far this this page is concerned, no news is good news. Nerd (talk) 23:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Bernie lost; so why is Typhoon still fighting? One of her main criticisms of Bernie was fighting on after clear defeat - now Typhoon is doing that in reverse. She must really hate Bernie. Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  4. >still arguing about bernie and hillary Petey Plane (talk) 21:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    Well actually, no. This isn't about Bernie and Hillary at all. This is about a problem user whose edit warring is now spreading outside of those articles. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    • looks* No, all of the edits are distinctly related to Bernie/Hillary issues. Even those outside of the article. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    Wait, you sure? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    I'll amend that. MOST edits. That one in Dawkins was about you inserting pro-Gamergate shit. "The IMGur link makes the perfectly lucid point that nobody deserves adverse consequences because of what they chose to wear." Really? So, when I send you to work wearing a shirt that says "LYNCH ALL NIGGERS!" you deserve no adverse consequences? Fuck a bunch of that.
    And now that I'm examining your contribution history, I see you're a fucking MRA cockmongler. So that explains a lot - especially the Bernie-stanning and your hard-on against Typhoon. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:18, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    Since you're following my instructions and diligently looking at my edits, don't miss this or this. And an MRA supporter now, am I? Aside from having been called a gator, a liar, a Bernieboy...? What's next, a parapsychologist? Give it a rest. This is about the behaviour of one user who blocks and edit wars non-problematic contributors and ignores mob rule. It's actually very simple. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:40, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    Do women deserve to be raped for wearing certain clothing? This logic perturbs me. Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    Something like that, it seems. This, I am against, as a voting feminist - as I've made perfectly clear. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:40, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    I don't recall advocating for illegal acts. Interesting that you think "adverse consequences" means illegal acts, though. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    Don't be evasive. Let's change "rape" to "slut shaming." Do women deserve to socially shamed for wearing certain clothing? For someone who seems to hate MRAs, it's odd that you'd use this line reasoning. Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    I'm not being evasive. I remain by this - the statement that nobody deserves adverse consequences because of what they chose to wear is bullshit. That does not mean that it is context-or-situation neutral; nor does it imply that women need to socially shamed for this or that clothing. If I agreed with Percy, then that means I would agree that nobody deserves adverse consequences because of what they chose to wear ANY TIME, ANYWHERE, ANY SITUATION, ANY CONTEXT PERIOD. Why? Because no qualifiers were stated and that makes it an absolute statement that applies to everything and everyone absolutely equally at all times.
    Do you agree with that absolute statement? --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    Yes and no, for two reasons. First of all, who decides what deserves adverse consequences? We might agree that your example should have "adverse consequences," but the MRAs and conservatives think that women should have "adverse consequences" for wearing certain things. You can't just say "it depends on the context and situation" because who decides what is problematic and what is not? You? Second of all, who decides what "adverse consequences" are in the first place? I don't think doxxxing is illegal per se, does that mean that the person in your example should be doxxxed for wearing a racist shirt? If that seems just to you, consider the fact that the GamerGators felt doxxxing women was the just course of action. Again, who decides all of this? People you disagree with could say the same things you are to justify heinous - if not illegal - action against people we would consider innocent. Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    It's an absolute statement without qualifiers. Therefore, it cannot be questioned or qualified; the answer must be YES or NO, nothing else.
    Your comments only apply if Percy said that nobody deserves adverse consequences because of what they chose to wear, with adverse consequences being defined as BLAH, and only applying in BLAH contact and BLAH situation. He didn't. He said, and I quote, "Nobody deserves adverse consequences because of what they chose to wear." This would immediately mean, for instance, that violation of all workplace or governmental or judicial dress codes should have absolutely no penalty attached to them whatsoever.
    So, without qualifying, do you agree with Percy's statement of "Nobody deserves adverse consequences because of what they chose to wear." that was made WITHOUT QUALIFICATION? --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    Ah, no, I don't agree with that without qualification. Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    Not a freedom of expression absolutist then, eh? ;) (talk) 23:44, 20 June 42016 AQD (UTC)
    I am, but this is confusing. For instance, if a person disregards a buisness dress code, does the busisness have any right to discipline them? As opposed to political or religious expression. Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    If you're an absolutist, you're against all restrictions on expression, right? Surely that should include dress codes of any kind. Why should it matter whether what's being expressed is a political ideology, religious affiliation, culture, gender, sexual orientation, fetish, fashion preference, fanbase membership, Internet meme, or whatever? Expression's expression. (talk) 00:43, 21 June 42016 AQD (UTC)
  5. In the tank for Hillary. While it's a person's right to be an idiot, ya'll need to get used to this obnoxious trollery cause that's what Clinton clones are known for. nobsBern baby bern 02:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  6. Even with my edits kept in the Bernie and Hillary article, they still remain overwhelmingly pro-Bernie and anti-Hillary. Despite that I've been called a "part of the HRC campaign" by mona and Nerd and much worse. While mona revels in sexist attacks such as "vagina voter", Nerd prefers the conspiratorial stuff, as can be seen from his obsession over Hillary's damn emails, or how google searches are under Hillary's control. This coop case was launched by Percy after his gamergate shit got deleted from the Dawkins page. It's nothing but revenge from his side, and I'm not gonna participate in this sham of a coop case after this post. Remember, it takes two people to edit war, and just because Nerd and co. can split their reverting of me, doesn't mean they aren't guilty of the same they accuse me. Typhoon (talk) 14:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
    Who's gonna take bets on when she comes back here?--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 14:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC) 14:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
    Typhoon or Mona?--JorisEnter (talk) 14:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
    False accusations once again. I responded to -Mona-'s accusation by saying that you deserve the benefit of the doubt in the absence of evidence. As for Clinton being criminally investigated by the FBI, that is a fact. Nerd (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
    Once again Typhoon and his victim complex have ridden up in his high horse of non-racist neutrality. Why he is so non-racist that when I opposed his edit about Cornel West's "Obama hatred" on Sanders page I was accused of being a "white, male Bernie zealot". But this wouldn't have been the first time Typhoon has accused a racial minority of being white for their wrongthink. Typhoon has accused every Sanders supporter of being racist and sexist as well.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 15:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC) 15:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
    "His GamerGate shit". Really now? It appears Typhoon dropped in just to remind everyone how gleefully she lies. And it is pretty funny when you think about it. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
    If that's the case, Owlman, please consider voting 'yes'. Nerd (talk) 00:19, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


The articles in question are locked until the convention is over. Or better yet, deleted and then created anew from scratch. Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 15:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Good idea- and maybe have some people who aren't so passionate try their hand instead? Jagulard (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
As one of the above commentators have pointed out, locking the pages will only freeze, not end the on-going edit-wars. Starting afresh will resume the conflict. Nerd (talk) 15:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I doubt anybody will still be in a fighting spirit once the convention is done with. Or if the civil war is still on after that, we can extend that to the election in November... Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 15:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
That's actually not a bad suggestion, considering the fact that the pages over in Wikipedia are protected. However, the moderators must take responsibility for updating them. Nerd (talk) 15:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Not having a page gets rid of the need of updating it... Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 17:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure if that's such a good idea. Just because a topic is controversial does not mean people should not be talking about them, if they so choose. The only thing we should require is that these conversations remain civil and relevant. Disagreements should be sorted out in the talk pages. Unfortunately, some of our editors use these talk pages to harass others. And that is what this Chicken Coop is about. Nerd (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
We don't need an article for people to talk about it. Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 17:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Why should we not have controversial articles? If people are willing to sort out their differences politely on the talk pages, there is really no problem. Nerd (talk) 17:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
And if not?--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 17:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC) 17:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Then we come here. That's what this page is for. Nerd (talk) 17:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
@Laurogeita Hamabost While I appreciate that you are striving in good intention for the same end goal as me - just trying to avoid the flames and the drama so we can have a constructive and productive wiki - I think I must count myself in agreement with Nerd on this one. I really do not see it as a healthy move for the site to ban particular pages. I wasn't in support of banning an Israel/Palestine page when Mona and the rest were going at it, and I still can't say I see anything being solved by "banning" the controversial subject in question. At the same time, there would be a clear cost to the "topic ban" policy; a cost to "academic" freedom, to the freedom of speech, and so on. Never mind the costs of even attempting to enforce such a rule. No; contrary to the warped tales told of me by certain people here, I have never principally discouraged opposing views on any given topic. Indeed, the basis for any critical analysis is "the dialectic process", the synthesis or sorting away of better and worse justified arguments and views. The willingness to discuss, not edit war, and the assumption of good faith. No; both the problem and solution has more to do with what type of behaviour is acceptable from individual editors in the face of the mobocracy. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

This whole thing is pretty sad. It's not clear to me why people with a obvious conflict of interest can bring a coop case against a person. Shouldn't it be a third party? It takes two sides to edit war. Argumentum ad populum is a fallacy, so "lots of us don't like it" really doesn't work. Why aren't the editors discussing the articles on the talk pages? This is confusing to me. To be honest, JorisEnter and Reverend Black Percy seem thin-skinned to me, flying off the handle at the drop of a hat. Any criticism they immediately jump on people and criticize and go to the coop. I question their leadership here. Taba (talk) 22:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Quite to the contrary, the accusers did not immediately jump to coop case. Please see the starting section. In addition, this is not a case of Argumentum ad populum, but rather consensus. Unfortunately, when one side, which in this particular case consists mainly of one person, refuses to discuss the matter over on the relevant talk pages in a civil manner and repeatedly edit-war, one must proceed to this page, which is regrettable but necessary. Nerd (talk) 23:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Consensus by people with a conflict of interest in the outcome. Taba (talk) 23:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

A relevant question: Is forcing one's views onto the wiki through persistent mainspace editwarring an actionable offence?[edit]

That seems to be the main issue here. We're typically (supposed to be) more tolerant when ideological differences are concerned, but a lot of people get very annoyed by repetitive edit wars. What's the mob's opinion? (talk) 22:41, 20 June 42016 AQD (UTC)


  1. We are all supposed to discuss specific issues in the relevant talk pages in a civil manner, assuming good faith from the other editors. One must be able to convince fellow contributors of one's viewpoint. Persistent war-editing ought to be frowned upon, as are personal attacks. Nerd (talk) 00:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Persistent edit-warring in the first place, regardless of intent, is the actionable offense. There's nothing wrong with pushing one's viewpoint as long as you can defend them with a whole lot of good sources and arguments. That's not what Typhoon is doing. User:Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:23, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Convince, don't silence. Lord Aeonian (talk) 02:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  4. I can't see why not. I rather agree with User:Pbfreespace3's reasoning. AyzmoCheers 13:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  5. Assholes are ruining your project. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  6. If a user refuses to talk and ignores consensus, then yes.--JorisEnter (talk) 22:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  7. Yes, as per above. Bongolian (talk) 17:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


  1. Since Mona was given carte blanche, I'd have to say the answer is No. Mona (and related followers) dictate what a particular position must be taken, and all edits to the contrary must be warred. *shrugs* I'd say that answers that. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:44, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    Still upset about that BLM edit war you lost?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 15:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC) 15:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
    What's a BLM? Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 15:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
    Black Lives Matter. Mona added info about their solidarity with Palestine and Castaigne disagreed and a war ensued. He eventually LANCB'd because of the dispute.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 15:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC) 15:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
    Bergbahn Lauterbrunnen-MürrenWikipedia, of course!!--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 15:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC) 15:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
    Nope. The decision was made; Mona is always right, those who oppose her are always wrong. That was the consensus. Therefore it must be absolutely obeyed. That's how I operate. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
    The great Mona Cabal. Carpetsmoker (talk) 19:23, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
    People really need to take a look at who and what descended on my edits when I first arrived here last August. I had no idea what I was getting into when I took a look at some of the I-P related articles and made a few edits. (I didn't even join for that; I joined to write this.) These were immediately reverted. I did everything I could to negotiate, and was entirely reasonable as the talk pages at the Zionism article will show. Eventually my two main antagonists were either banned or perma-binned, but not before months of them being allowed to dog my every edit, no matter how well-sourced. Several other antagonists from those I-P articles remain, and have made it their mission to hurl insults at me and edit war much that I write on any political topics; all that matters is that it is me making the edits. That I prevailed on the I-P issue, leading what emerged to be the majority POV, is something they are not going to forgive, and they detest me for it. If I ended up behaving as an embattled person, people should consider why. ---Mona- (talk) 20:44, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
    Persecution complex intensifying.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 17:19, 26 June 2016 (UTC) 17:19, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
    This coming from a young man who literally created a sockpuppet which he continues to use to say "aahhh Mona bad, aahhh!!!!!" Absolutely ridiculous, BB. PBfreespace (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
    I wanna be a proper wikivillain like Mona, too, where can I get mindless minions such as you?--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 18:41, 26 June 2016 (UTC) 18:41, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
    Oh, I thought you were a sock puppet. Bongolian (talk) 17:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Should be. Isn't. Hipocrite (talk) 22:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    It could be. All you need is a mob consensus. (And this being a vote and all...) (talk) 22:51, 20 June 42016 AQD (UTC)
    Too late for that, bro. Precedent already exists. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Question assumes way too much and is not the sort of thing that should be encouraged - David Gerard (talk) 08:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  4. What Dave said. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


Actually, the point I'm making regards the practice of abusing sysop tools, edit warring with the goal of attrition, and one user disregarding the mob rule of multiple editors whilst showing a complete practical disregard for constructive talk page use. It has little to do with whether or not everyone must share a perspective on things, or conversely the problem per se of having a specific viewpoint. Basically, the above is about the legality of Ryulong-type behaviour over extended periods of time, impeding the work of numerous uncontroversial editors. Though, I don't question the value of a separate discussion held about the specific things you stipulate here. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  1. Who decides which one is the edit warrior? Lots of you abuse sysop tools. Conscience (talk) 23:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
That must be decided by a majority vote on a case by case basis. (For the record, I have not blocked anyone, not even once.) Nerd (talk) 23:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Mona is not really being discussed here. We could talk about her, but we're not right now. She's LANCB'd again for now, and has not yet arrived here to talk or vote. I personally believe that while both users edit warred, Mona was actually right in the war and deserved to win. That's my biased view. Granted, Mona has already been punished in a way by being disliked by a plurality (majority?) of the community, as well as harassment and many coop cases, so it seems fitting that even if we were applying punishment to both Mona and Typhoon, that we still punish Typhoon. PBfreespace (talk) 00:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, this is about Typhoon, not -Mona-. She's a topic for another time. Nerd (talk) 00:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Except for when she comes back to insult people. CorruptUser (talk) 03:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I like how she added "I hope Israel fails too" haha Lord Aeonian (talk) 03:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Moved to Israel

I did not write that, and that "Zuge" person is not me. I have never created a sock account here, or anywhere else, except once in comments at The Guardian, as an experoiment, and I revealed my sock as soon as the experiment was completed. ---Mona- (talk) 20:27, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

This is a rather loaded question. If you say yes, a certain group of editors gets to push their views, if you say no, you look like a jerk. Sad for RW, really. Taba (talk) 23:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Again, this is about consensus and harassment. Nerd (talk) 23:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Where can I find this consensus? So far, it looks like three or four users are ganging up on one. Where did a clear majority of RW users decide that pro-Bernie edits would stand, and Typhoon's wouldn't? Seriously, I can't find it, so please point me to it. Jagulard (talk) 23:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Merriam-Webster defines consensus to be the general agreement or judgment shared by most of those concerned. Your criterion is impractical because clearly not all RW editors are interested in contributing to the pages at stake here. A better criterion would be the consensus of those currently editing those pages. Nerd (talk) 23:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Um, no. Best would be a third party who could more properly be objective about the case. Do you not understand conflict of interest? Taba (talk) 23:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Nerd, but how can you define consensus so narrowly and then justify bringing the question to this forum? If you want all of these users to pass judgment on Typhoon's actions, then you're asking them to decide whether your so-called consensus is valid. You can't have it both ways. Jagulard (talk) 23:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry. But I forgot to remind people of the harassment endured by multiple editors at the hands of Typhoon. Also, I did not define consensus that way. Just click on that link then scroll down to the Full Definition section and you will see. Nerd (talk) 23:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Still not working for me. From where I stand, there are examples of frustration, anger, and harassment on both sides. Simply having more harassers on your side doesn't make it a consensus. Jagulard (talk) 23:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Let me try again. This is a case of multiple editors complaining about the behavior of one. For the record, I have never used profanities, much less harass other people. Nerd (talk) 01:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
First, I need to point out that you have linked to article histories, not to specific instances of abuse. Your case would be much stronger if you were able to show actual abusive behavior more than two sides edit warring. Second, I never stated that you personally were harassing others. However, the article histories to which you have linked show you engaged in the same behavior, which means that if she is harassing you in those pages, you are harassing her, too. Finally, the only way that "consensus" works here is if by it you mean "a consensus of pro-Sanders editors." Jagulard (talk) 01:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
You may want look at those links I posted in response to David Gerald, which are talk pages. Those links will take you right to the relevant sections. I repeat that I do not harass other users. Please look carefully. I think you are not really getting the definition of consensus. Let's consider another example. Decisions reached on this page is based the consensus reached by the people who have voted since understandably not everyone at RW are interested in coming here unless it involves them. Once again, majority rules. This is not really about Sanders or Clinton or Dawkins but about Typhoon's undesirable behavior as an RW editor. (And if you think that RW article is "pro-Sanders", you may want to visit his page on Wikipedia. Ours has an extensive section full of criticisms and makes theirs look more like a hagiography.) Nerd (talk) 00:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
That's not how RW has ever worked, Nerd. Consensus has never been limited to "most of those concerned". This is an anarchic mobocracy, not a democracy. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure what that has to do with this being a loaded question. Taba (talk) 23:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Hey, let's all keep enemies lists! (and now for something completely different)[edit]

How do we feel as a community about This fun enemies list. I think it's really helpful to make sure that grudges are held for as long as humanly possible and documented in stone. Wait, no I don't. Perhaps we should tell the person edit warring to keep an enemies list to stop. Your thoughts? Hipocrite (talk) 22:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm grudgy as fuck and believe in freedom of speech, so nah. Let's have 'em. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:21, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Hipocrite, would you rather we just keep all of our disagreements to edit warring and pretend there aren't any serious ideological differences and disagreements between us? I'm all for a referendum on what people think about the silly page, but I would oppose a motion to delete, as it's in my userspace which is protected under the community standards. PBfreespace (talk) 22:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
What exactly is our ideological difference? Please, tell me what I believe in - I'm waiting with bated breath. Hipocrite (talk) 22:24, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Apparently, we're "Blues", Neo-Puritans out to stifle freedom and impose a moral theocracy in accordance to our thousand-year war on the Reds. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:27, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
It's more a futile waste of time than anything else. Why bother being bothered by harmless userpages? (talk) 22:33, 20 June 42016 AQD (UTC)
LOL. Castaigne, I did not have that in mind. I was trying to come up with a metaphor for Roman race teams, but I see no one got that. Perhaps If I had said greens and pinks, or something like that? Eh, it's fixed now. PBfreespace (talk) 00:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
You might as well keep it as "red" and "blues", since I believe you are lying when you said that you did not have it in mind, and since I believe you are an adherent of that Clarkhat/MRA/Nrx/Gator/whatever viewpoint. None of your actions or edits convince me otherwise. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Why is suddenly everybody you don't like an MRA/NRx/Gator dipshit? These groups are pretty obscure to most human beings, you know. (talk) 15:49, 21 June 42016 AQD (UTC)
What's an NRx? Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 15:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Neoreactionary movement (talk) 16:07, 21 June 42016 AQD (UTC)
There are actual people calling themselves reactionary? Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 16:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
If a person spouts Marxist ideology, promotes the ideas of Marx, advocates for what Marx wanted, and refuses to call themselves or denies they are a Marxist, would you accept that? No, that person is a Marxist, whether that person identifies with them or not.
By the same measure, if a person is spouting ideology by that particular alliance, then they are by default part of that alliance. If they weren't, they wouldn't spout the ideology. It's all very simple. --Castaigne2 (talk) 02:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Isn't it funny that this latest coup, yet again, has the same editors organized into the same camps I described earlier? It seems people don't care who's right or wrong when someone on "their side" is being tried. Tribalism at its finest. Lord Aeonian (talk) 02:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes. You're right. This is what I was trying to point out in the page at hand here. Now granted, right-wing and left-wing are terms some may disagree with (I'm fervently left-wing on the normal spectrum), but the placements fit. I guess the only things I'm not stereotypically left-wing on are Gamergate and third-wave feminism. PBfreespace (talk) 03:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
No, I believe Percy and the gang are wrong. I believe they are far too biased and their war against Typhoon is to ensure ONLY their viewpoint prevails. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Consensus: the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned (Merriam-Webster). Nerd (talk) 16:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't see what this sentence has to do with my comment. --Castaigne2 (talk) 02:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
This enemies list business is juvenile and counterproductive to RW goals. It assumes that people can never see past ideology and to what is right. Bongolian (talk) 17:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

How can conflicts like these be avoided?[edit]

Apparently the issue behind this conflict goes a bit deeper than the current fight. Is there any way to resolve this without another conflict along rather similar lines happening two weeks, two months or two days from now? Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 15:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Now this is a good question. It may have something to do with user rights abuse. You may want to take a look at the archives of this page. There was a coop case earlier this month. Nerd (talk) 15:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Not so much user rights abuse as zealotry. And don't get me wrong, some of the Bernie supporters (Mona) are just as crazy as Typhoon. An additional problem is that editors are attacking and defending in coop cases based on ideological reasons alone - this is tribalism. Look at the coop cases and you'll see it clearly. Look at this one. The issue of Hillary vs the "Bernie bros" has been brought up, it's been noted that those against Typhoon, are, interestingly, all adding pro-Sanders content. And is it not just as interesting that everyone who is voting against her punishment agrees with her pro-Hillary position? Some have even made this "the articles need more anti-Bernie content!" reasoning explicit. When I see editors from a plurality of viewpoints agree, I'll change my mind. The coop cases always look like this, the "yes" and "no" votes are always an ideological roster of who supports what. Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

So there seem to be three solutions: One side imposes its will on the other with the other ultimately silenced or disappeared. We ban the topic(s) on which there is disagreement. Or we find some sort of compromise, maybe by having both sides write their own article(s) Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 21:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Hand out temporary 1RR prohibitions like candy? Once you've been declared contentious on an article you get to revert a particular change once a day then you have to go recruiting for help. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I mean, obviously the net effect is that the less popular opinion among contentious types will gradually lose, but that's not really any worse than what we have now. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
@Laurogeita Hamabost: What's wrong with the rule of the majority? Decisions made on this particular page will ultimately be made on the same basis, no? Nerd (talk) 23:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
That would be Argumentum ad populum Sandflapjack (talk) 18:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
So most modern nations are doing their politics completely wrong? Because that's what democracy is about: rule of the majority.--JorisEnter (talk) 18:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The only way theses conflicts can be avoided is if the people involved suddenly developed a sense of self awareness. Seems unlikely. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

You know how "cuck" and "regressive left" are tossed around by the alt-right as near meaningless slurs? In the circles I tend to find myself in "lack of self-awareness" actually kinda fits the same mold. I mean obviously it's always intended to describe a particular failing rather than just meaning "bad person" like the completely unthinking alt-right terms are, but it's got such a broad stroke that I often feel like it's not informative.
What exactly are they not aware of? And isn't that thing the actual problem? I dunno. I've just seen it enough that it bothers me. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
its a common failing on the internet. The other guy is always so completely wrong and you are so completely right that compromise or the recognition that the other side might have a valid point becomes impossible. Folk get so locked into the 'fight' what they are fighting over is irrelevant. Its particularly egregious when others weigh in egging each other on while proclaiming tbeir rationality (please no 'drink' meme). I dont suffer from this though, i am perfect. An idiot, but perfect. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
But I thought this was supposed to be RATIO- oh, wait.--JorisEnter (talk) 22:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

First of all, the regressive left is a real thing. Never heard of "cuck" though. Second of all, by "lack of self-awareness" people mean zealotry. Look at Mona on Israel. Mona believes everything Israel ever did is bad and everything Hamas ever did was good or a "reaction" to those evil joos. She can't even comprehend that perhaps she isn't completely right - much less the idea that she might be wrong if it came to that. That's the lack of self-awareness. As Aristotle said, "it is the mark of an educated mind to be able to seriously entertain an idea without necessarily accepting it." The zealots just can't do that. Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I concur. I would just like to add that zealots are unable to participate in a nuanced discussion with others who may or may not share their views on the topics they are so passionate about. Nerd (talk) 23:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
You don't keep up with politics, do you, since the whole "cucks" and "cuckservatives" thing is now over a year old. --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
"regressive left is a real thing" I want to jump into the void and float for all eternity. Sandflapjack (talk) 18:21, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

It cant be, theres something fundamentally broek with the way that rationalwiki is run, and how we handle editing in general should be changed for a much fairer and factual system. Sandflapjack (talk) 02:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Make me dictator, and I promise I'll only block annoying and/or intransigent people. I don't enjoy or want to have power over others, so I'm a good fit for the job. This is actually a serious suggestion, though I don't expect it to be implemented. --Ymir (talk) 19:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
You could potentially be a moderator when the next election cycle begins. Nerd (talk) 19:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Can the votes be closed?[edit]

There is a slight majority (8/14) for "vaguely punish Typhoon", though it's not 2/3 and so could only be a wrist-slap. Can we slap Typhoon, archive this, and get back to being whiny editwarring assholes? αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 16:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

No, I think there's more discussion that needs to be had. I understand that you want to sweep this under the rug in favor of your friends, but there are some pressing issues of dishonesty I see here that really should be sussed out first. --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Slap her with a trout.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 16:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC) 16:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not saying Typhoon shouldn't be genuinely punished -- contra Castaigne's tribalist comments above -- but rather that the coop doesn't look like it's gonna support such punishment. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 16:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with tribalism. It has to do with the plaintiffs seeming to have a definite agenda and not being honest about having one. Please do not try to tout that I'm on Typhoon's side because she's Typhoon or any such nonsense. Typhoon is definitely not on my side; she never voted for me. --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
You never know, maybe a couple lurkers will pop up from the shadows. My main concern, though, isn't whether any penalization or trout-slapping happens, but whether Typhoon realizes that their imperious attitude and overzealous POV-pushing editwarring are bad things and stops trying to avoid blame by pointing at other people. (talk) 16:56, 22 June 42016 AQD (UTC)
Not likely, given how POV-pushy those who oppose Typhoon are. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 17:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Serious.gif--JorisEnter (talk) 17:28, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I think you haven't yet talked to Pbfree. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 17:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
You appear to have ignored our resident GamerGators, and our islamaphobes, all of whom have shown up on that side, quell surprise! Hipocrite (talk) 22:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
It's currently 9 for, 6 against some form of punishment, and as far as I can see a simple majority allows for pretty much anything that isn't a ban. Binning or demopping (as was done with Pizzameister's case) is perfectly possible.--JorisEnter (talk) 17:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the Community Standards on Voting says it must last between seven and fourteen days. Reverend Black Percy began this coop case on June 20th. Nerd (talk) 02:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@FuzzyCatPotato First of all, Typhoon is definitely the one doing POV-pushing. She tried to make the Hillary article less critical, and the Bernie article more critical. I didn't do these things. In fact, one of the few edits I made to the Sanders article could reasonably be construed as a critical edit. I don't see how anything I did in the actual articles counts as POV-pushing. PBfreespace (talk) 16:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm seeing an assumption here that we need to be more critical of Clinton and less critical of Sanders. Wouldn't it be more in keeping with the mission to be heavily critical of both? --Castaigne2 (talk) 17:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
We are indeed critical of both. Bernie Sanders' page has an entire section on criticisms while Hillary Clinton's has criticisms integrated in the discussion. Nerd (talk) 01:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
As such, Typhoon's attempt to lather Clinton with more praise is undeserved and wrong. PBfreespace (talk) 01:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, we should be careful not to commit the balance fallacy. How many criticisms each person, or any other, has depends on their own actions. For those who think we are being lenient on Sanders, compare our page with Wikipedia's. Nerd (talk) 01:14, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
That is a very good point. Wikipedia is good measuring rod - those who claim (really just one person) that we are "BernieBros" are clearly succumbing to their own biases and zealotry. Lord Aeonian (talk) 03:51, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
It has been seven days since Reverend Black Percy started this coop case. There are 12/19 people who believe Typhoon should be penalized on one way or the other, a clear majority. I think we can now move on to vote on what the specific disciplinary measures are. Nerd (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to open a vote on punishment. Since the entire procedure has already taken 7 days, there will not be a minimum time required for this vote. PBfreespace (talk) 19:42, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Just for the record[edit]

It's 12-6 for punishing Typhoon now, which is a two thirds majority.--JorisEnter (talk) 17:32, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

So we'll have to have a second round about the exact way to punish her, right? Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 17:57, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Ah you're ignoring goat votes. Ë. (talk) 18:10, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
What's the usual procedure with goat votes? Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 18:16, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
They simply don't count.--JorisEnter (talk) 18:19, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
by the Community Standards. Nerd (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
So why do people vote goat in the first place? Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 18:22, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
You should ask them. Nerd (talk) 18:24, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
They vote goat to show dislike of the 2 options or discontent with the general coop process. PBfreespace (talk) 19:28, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
No, Goat "votes" are not votes but usually an area for additional discussion. I frequently vote for one of the options and then make a post under "Goat" to address some issue or make an observation. Lord Aeonian (talk) 20:02, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Has all of this resolved anything?[edit]

People have aired their grievances, but nothing has been resolved. Or has it? Maybe we should keep debating until some productive outcome is reached? Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 17:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

How this usually goes is that it gets chewed over until one of the mods gets tired of it, issues whatever they want to mete out, and archives it. Nothing will ever actually be resolved. --Castaigne2 (talk) 17:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
So what's the purpose of all that? Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 17:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
What it says on the tin, really. "The chicken coop is for the avoidance, containment and resolution of cases of Headless Chicken Mode (HCM)." --Castaigne2 (talk) 17:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

It will never be resolved because we havent solved the underlying problem with this all, the system in place is broken and needs to be changed for a fairer system. Sandflapjack (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

And what would that "fairer system" be?--JorisEnter (talk) 17:21, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Can you please describe what the rules of this "fairer system" would be? --Castaigne2 (talk) 17:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Typically the system favors the privileged, those who have been here longer and have more edits have more power. When a page gets locked due to an edit war, the page gets locked with the edits of the more powerful in place. Also, the votes are skewed due to the more powerful having more connections and able to summon more people to vote. It has happened with mona, and her threats to brigade the votes, which i assume she had already done. What we need is a less lopsided voting system in place that can look at the facts without bias. I also feel that if you are accused or take place in the argument at all, you should be barred from voting. Typhoon did not vote yet the people who have warred with her got to cast a vote against her. I also feel like there should an actual case, instead of taking the word of people. Evidence and defense proceedings much like an actual court. Im not 100% sure how to fix this because im not that intelligent. Sandflapjack (talk) 17:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
We knew that by now.--JorisEnter (talk) 18:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Also, your point was basically "the side that I don't like has more people on it. That's unfair!" Besides, can you actually show any votes which Mona "brigaded"?--JorisEnter (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
@SFJ: Nobody likes changing the Coop into anything more substantial. Tried, failed. GL.
@JE: Unnecessary burn. Unnecessary defense of Mona. Discuss the proposal. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 18:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
SFJ's proposal is pretty stupid - it comes down to "it's unfair that the side that gets the most votes wins". And since when should people who "take place in the argument" not be allowed to vote?--JorisEnter (talk) 18:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
@FCP: Then try try again. Something NEEDS to be done, the quality of the wiki will drop significantly if we allow these injustices to continue.
@JorisOwen: It comes down to appeal to mob, just because a large amount of voters want something to happen, doesnt make it correct or the right thing to do. Not participating in voting if you yourself took place in edit warring is one safeguard. If the arguement was a couple people together as friends vs 1 person, then they are already at a statistical disavantage. Sandflapjack (talk) 18:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Have you got a better idea?--JorisEnter (talk) 18:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Im sure we could devise a solution if we put our heads together. Again, I dont have a solution, just some scattered ideas. Sandflapjack (talk) 18:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Resolved? In the coop? Ooh haha bawhahaha! StickySock (talk) 18:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Who takes bets, that the next Coop Case gonna be about...[edit]

...the "Illiberal Left" article, cause an edit war is already raging there.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 22:05, 22 June 2016 (UTC) 22:05, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, after you finish trying to take out Typhoon you'll move on to me, and then the next, and the next. The politics of personal destruction is certainly strong somewhere. Hipocrite (talk) 22:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
It's just gonna get merged into regressive left. Let's be real, it's the exact same flavor of criticism with a barely different label. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 22:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
No, no, no - the illiberal left are different from the regressive left who are different from the radfems who are different from atheism pluses who are different from the beta males....and so on. Just ask the alt-right. Who are we to question their wisdom? --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Are you accusing me of being part of brigading?--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 22:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC) 22:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
No, he's stating you and yours are just going to target the people you want gone until they are perma-banned, one after the other. That's not what brigading is.
Reading comprehension, bro. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
No, I'm accusing you of being part of the offensive gaggle of people who think that this is a competition to be won, and who believe that the way to win it is to eliminate people who are on what they perceive as the other side of said competition. I'm accusing you of being influenced by the toxic culture that was brought to our project by a stream of shitlords. How you personally got here, I don't care, but someone please bring back the days where people could disagree with eachother harshly and then STOP, as opposed to holding grudges for months. Hipocrite (talk) 22:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
That's some extreme persecution and victim complex, I have no personal grudges against either Typhoon or you.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 22:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC) 22:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Hipocrite is talking about the culture here, which should be perfectly obvious because he didn't say a word about feeling persecuted, being a victim, or your behavior having any direct personal effect on him at all. It's always easier to dismiss someone out of hand by mischaracterizing their position, isn't it? Extreme persecution and victim complex. So dishonest! Conscience (talk) 22:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Winning does not require that one have a personal grudge. It just means you grind until you make the objective. "Grind" in this case referring to a gaming term, if you are unfamiliar. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:21, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

We're gonna be winning so much, it will be unbelievable... Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 22:25, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Best comment so far. Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind if regressive left was merged with virtue signaling or whatever. As is, I've stated my position on the regressive left and my opinion of how we Rats haven't done it justice. CorruptUser (talk) 22:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

What is "virtue signaling?" I rarely know what you people are talking about. Just today I read "cuckservative" on the Illiberal left talkpage and had no idea what that is either. But those who bring them up seem to have an agenda to pretend to the regressive left doesn't exist, that's for sure. Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:41, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Didn't hear of virtue signaling before someone added it to somewhere in the wiki. Basically, it's the idea that some people are part of protests and movements not because they care about the movement but because they want other people to know they care about the movement. Considering that certain protests can be a good way to meet people... CorruptUser (talk) 04:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Isn't that more akin to what an SJW/white knight is supposed to be rather than a regressive leftist?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:38, 23 June 2016 (UTC) 04:38, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
It's a closely related species, as far as I'm concerned. A lot of the r-leftists are often just people that want to sound "moral" while being "stupid", and not necessarily the people who are promoting/tolerating illiberal ideologies merely because the right doesn't want it.
Pro-tip: just because The Man is against something doesn't mean The Man is wrong. CorruptUser (talk) 05:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
some folk spend too much time on the internet that they have started to think these things have any effect or relevance in the real world. I never encounter these terms anywhere else. AMassiveGay (talk) 07:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Type of Punishment[edit]

The "Yes" option clearly has it 12 to 7. Therefore, we must now vote on the manner of punishment. I will offer several proposals, each to be given a yes/no vote. This will best gauge the community's will. PBfreespace (talk) 19:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Based on what other people have been doing below, I am operating under the assumption that every option that splits into a Yes/No option is a separate vote, and thus, that I may cast my vote either as a Yes or No for each of said categories of punishment. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Important question regarding the below vote[edit]

Is it the case that all the options that reach more "Yes" votes than "No" votes will be enacted? If so, this will affect how people vote, and should be made perfectly clear before we proceed. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

That is the way I originally intended it, so yes. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 23:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough - all options with more "Yes" than "No" votes WILL be enforced. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
When were you elected mod? Hipocrite (talk) 23:58, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, when were you elected mod? Hipocrite (talk) 23:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
PB started the vote, PB answered the question, and besides, the "No" camp started out by casting negative votes for all such options. The participation of all in a mobocracy, as below, ensures due process. Deal with it. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:01, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
He doesn't have the authority to do that. The mods make such decisions. Hipocrite (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
RationalWiki is a mobocracy, not a "modocracy". And if the vote below was fradulent, the "Nay" side is free to argue that, instead of participating in said vote. Duh. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I understand that you're going to do everything you can to make sure that the part of Arrow's theorem that's violated is Non-dictatorship. Hipocrite (talk) 00:06, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Something, something, butthurt. Something, something, complete. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Protest.gifProtest.gifProtest.gifProtest.gifProtest.gif Taba (talk) 00:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Reverend Black Percy and Pbfreespace3 may ask any questions they want, as long as they phrase them unambiguously and let people know all the details, since the Community Standards on Voting say nothing about this. Nerd (talk) 00:20, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree that they can ask any question they want. What they can't do is determine how the votes will be interpreted. That's what we elected the mods for. Hipocrite (talk) 00:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
PB set up a vote that is provided for by the Coop rules, and which is not argued against by the Community Standards. RW is a mobocracy - the moderators wouldn't agree with you that their job is somehow to veto the mob. The fact of the matter is that people, "Nay" and "Yay" alike, are participating in the below vote. Get with the program. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to walk away now, with the note that when this is over, I intend to start a coop case about your total inability to compromise or work on compromise wording in anything. You are as bad as Typhoon, or worse. Hipocrite (talk) 00:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
"As bad as Typhoon" Ladies and gentlemen, we now have confirmed admission of guilt. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Stop this meaningless edit war already! Voting conventions are stated upfront. What more do you want? Nerd (talk) 00:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Firstly, said conventions were added far after the vote started. Secondly, conventions are not determined by some rando - they are determined by the moderators. Hipocrite (talk) 00:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Firstly, PB clearly stated that this was his original intention, and the nay side started out by voting for all "No" options initially. Secondly, when not explicitly in the rules, the conventions are decided by the mobocracy, not the moderators. Everyone is participating below. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Moderators only need to jump in if people are struggling. But since quite a few have voted,... Nerd (talk) 00:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Some of the people that voted back when they thought only the highest vote getter would win might have voted differently if they knew that multiple options could win. With multiple winning options, it is more likely that any given option could win - which is what PB and RBP would prefer, so letting them define how winning happens after voting happened is wrong. Let the mods decide what happens after the vote based on whatever metric they want to use. Perhaps they will discard gators and multiple voting socks, and not just rotely count the ballots, as they've been told they must do. Hipocrite (talk) 00:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
"Gators and socks" Here come the wild conspiracies again... Sigh. Hipocrite, you do realise that the vote will be left open for quite some time, right? Nothing will be rushed, everybody has the chance to reconsider, change their votes, and even rally en masse to question the premises of the vote as given by PB. But right now, it's just you making a ton of noise and waving your arms around. Relax. Everything will get due process. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not saying there are any that voted (well, there's a gator that voted, but whatever), but the mods might ignore them. It's just you making a ton of noise and waiving your arms around against me. Let me request again - remove "WILL" and change to "may," and I'll be fine. Hipocrite (talk) 00:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
But PB started the vote, and PB implied "will", not "may". Whatever alternate interpretations the moderators may have to what PB intended, it's not for me to just alter PB's words somehow. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:06, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
If the conventions are decided by the mobocracy, why do you and PB get to decide on the conventions, exactly? Hipocrite (talk) 00:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
PB made a vote with the original intent as stated above. The "No" side voted for all "No" options, without asking for clarification. I asked for clarification, and it was given. The "No" side had voted aptly. All options count towards punishment. Everyone, including you, are participating below. Problem solved. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't think the mob has weighed in on the "all options with more "Yes" than "No" votes WILL be enforced." I suggest that the mob would prefer "The moderators will review the votes and do something, or not." Hipocrite (talk) 00:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Let's just wait for a few days and see what happens. Anyone who has voted can easily choose different options. In the meantime, please stop the edit war! Nerd (talk) 00:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I did stop the edit war, after trying multiple different versions. I do so under protest, and state that this vote is invalidated by the current language. Hipocrite (talk) 00:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Good. Let's just wait for people and the moderators to voice their opinions. Nerd (talk) 00:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Couldn't have said it better myself. But Hipocrite just couldn't contain him/herself, and had to go on a wild spree, despite the silly and obvious fact that there's no rush and that this will all be resolved in due process at the proper time and date. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
If I'm the one on the unstoppable spree, why does the text below reflect your multiple reverts and not mine, exactly? Hipocrite (talk) 00:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I know you are, but what am I? Takes one to know one! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Taba (talk) 00:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

This vote is invalid[edit]

Due to falseified instructions, I ask that this vote be invalidated and done over, with the mods writing up instructions that don't change to benefit the losing party when it's clear they aren't about to get what they want. Hipocrite (talk) 00:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

No moderator has decided on this! Since when were you elected moderator?! Baaaaaw Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm asking one to. Hipocrite (talk) 00:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
As have I. I'm not saying the moderators shouldn't be all over this toxic garbage dump (as Gerard skillfully puts it). I was just asking you the same exact moronical question you posed me. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
You have purported that the moderators must enact all majority opinions. I have requested the moderators delete this abortion you created and start again with something not idiotic. Hipocrite (talk) 00:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
"I created"? You mean, you want the moderators to delete this entire Coop case? Good luck with that, Stalin. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Excuse me? You decided to change the wording of the vote after it was started?
You can forget my yes vote for any of them. --Castaigne2 (talk) 01:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Also, it has never been the case that more than one option was enforced. It's always been the one with the most no votes. You want to play cheater slicks, that's your business, but fuck that noise. --Castaigne2 (talk) 01:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
You may want to read the comment made by 142, a moderator, below. Also, you have the right to change your vote as you see fit. Nerd (talk) 01:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I've read it. I did change my vote. It does not address changing the wording of the option after the vote has already started', which changes the option from a "warning" to "warning and whenever Percy deems it to be edit warring she must stop making edits." That's fucking bullshit. Percy, despite any protestations to the contrary, will countermand any edits he doesn't like from Typhoon based on his own will, ambition, and desire.. That is clear enough from his edit history and statements; just go back and read the last 5000 edits of his. His continued disingenuousness and weasel-wording does nothing to discredit this. --Castaigne2 (talk) 01:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Troll Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Tell it to someone who believes you. I don't. I don't trust you. Put it back to the original wording of "Typhoon is warned not to edit war.", keep it that way, and I will believe you in this instance. --Castaigne2 (talk) 01:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Let's not discuss the same thing in two places, shall we? I replied below. Thanks in advance. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, not sorry, don't care, don't believe you. --Castaigne2 (talk) 01:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Head and shoulders, knees and toes, knees and toes. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
People can set up votes whatever way they see fit. If people want to complain about the way a vote is set up, they are free to do so. If a mod thinks 'No, this should be voted on this way not that way' they can reorganize/restart the vote as they see fit. A regular user can attempt to do the same, but their success is dependent on whether other people go along with it. And finally, at the end of a vote, if the closing mod decides to close things somewhat differently than what appears to have been agreed upon, they can do so at their own discretion. If non-mods make seemingly authoritative claims on how voting results will be measured and accrued, they can do so, but there is no guarantee that's how things will actually go. Now can we all calm down and get back to deciding the issue at hand? (talk) 01:16, 28 June 42016 AQD (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to explain. And, yes; with Hipocrite pulling a Mona, we should see the return of prudence, order and sanity practically immediately. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
If moderators disagree, then what happens? Nerd (talk) 01:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
The moderators do what they always do - try their best to resolve a sticky situation, uphold the rules and generally get people's heads screwed back on right so we can go back to actually contributing to the wiki instead of sailing the seas of endless drama. Goat bless them for that. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes it's invalid. All that you can do is "punish" Typhoon, according to your vote. The vagueness makes it unenforceable. (Look, Typhoon you're punished!) According to the rules, "In policy votes and penalty votes dealing with a user's removal from the site (temporarily or permanently), a positive option ... must accrue a two-thirds majority of votes to pass. In all other types of penalty votes, a positive option must accrue a simple majority of votes to pass." You are now taking a supposed impetus to "punish" and changing it to "block", which is temporarily removing a user from the site. The first vote cannot do that. Taba (talk) 18:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
dunno bout validity, but it is just facile. What is the point of a warning, then a strong warning, then vandel binning, the a weeks block, then a for week block all at the same time? Why not call them a poopy face while your at? AMassiveGay (talk) 19:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

To clarify[edit]

I am only speaking as one editor of many now, but I recommend the following. If the vote is found unclear (or in violation of any rule on voting) by the mobocracy or by the moderators, we ought to restart from scratch with a new vote. Secondly, nobody is "rushing to finish" the vote here anyways. This vote will be allowed to take its sweet old time (as is part of due process), whether restarted with a fresh definition or not, and everyone will have a chance to be heard before we actually act on anything. My two cents on the issue. Thank you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but after changing the wording? I consider you to be a liar. You are lying now. --Castaigne2 (talk) 01:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not lying, you silly goose. That's why I headlined it "to clarify", and wrote it most recently; to act as a bit of a reference statement on the below vote. I genuinely hope that that is is sufficiently clear to you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Tell it to someone who believes you. I don't. I don't trust you. Put it back to the original wording of "Typhoon is warned not to edit war.", keep it that way, and I will believe you in this instance. --Castaigne2 (talk) 01:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I actually just showed up to the vote saying more than "Typhoon is warned not to edit war.", mentioning me by name and so on. I'd actually gladly remove it, but the point is, I showed up to a vote in progress with that option looking exactly like it does now. I don't support changing the wording of the option when votes have already been cast. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
How interesting; neither do I. So how about I go change it back to what the wording was when I cast my vote. I think I'll do that right now. --Castaigne2 (talk) 01:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I support one thing: whatever the option read when the vote was created and the first votes were cast ought reasonably to be what the options should read now as well. Making the change is on you, but if this is the situation, then I agree. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, not sorry, don't care, don't believe you. --Castaigne2 (talk) 01:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Troll Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

mod hat on: why this appears invalid[edit]

You have failed to make 2/3, so you have made the ad-hoc claim you can get a vote passed by bare majority. This is an attempt to rush to a conclusion you like. Seeing no other mods weigh in so far, I'll note that as a mod, I would not be happy to enforce this as stated, and would happily reverse attempts to do so. You've failed to achieve sufficient consensus. Any other mods got an opinion? - David Gerard (talk) 17:20, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Where did they fail to achieve two thirds majority? Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for putting on the mod hat, David. Though, just for the record - 142 is a moderator and has weighed in. And as I've stated, as far as I'm concerned, there will and should be no kind of rushing the vote, and indeed, if a moderator deems the vote to be unclear, we should restart the vote. My two cents, as already given plainly. Oh well. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Rolls eyes[edit]

"In policy votes and penalty votes dealing with a user's removal from the site (temporarily or permanently), a positive option ... must accrue a two-thirds majority of votes to pass. In all other types of penalty votes, a positive option must accrue a simple majority of votes to pass." All blocks from site must require 2/3 votes. "Warning" (whatever that is in perpetual RW chest thumping) does not. Y'all unconflated the unconflatable. It's also not clear what it means if you vote both for both ban options. This whole this is absurd. So much wasted time and effort on too many people's part just to enforce simple policy. I would also say voting to punish someone without the specific punishment specified accomplishes nothing. What are you going to do? Go to her page and say, "YOU'VE BEEN PUNISHED!"? Taba (talk) 18:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Do you think the voting convention below is acceptable?[edit]


  1. I don't see why not. There was a small dispute over the voting process due to a failure to clarify existing procedure. This has been rectified. We've had a long coop case yet again with too much drama. It should end now. That's why I proposed solutions right after the silly 7 day mandatory minimum expired. Now, we need to just get this over with instead of having more drama. PBfreespace (talk) 02:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. --JorisEnter (talk) 07:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. --Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:06, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  4. While the convention is certainly unusual, it is stated upfront so people know what they are in. Nerd (talk) 13:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


  1. At this point, fuck no. --Castaigne2 (talk) 01:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. NO Sandflapjack (talk) 05:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Penalties should be set by rule, not picked out of a hat by interested grudge holders. Conscience (talk) 15:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  4. I'm finding the punishment-by-mob-vote a little disquieting, personally. Especially when it involves something open-ended. Moreso when punishments apparently stack. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 16:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  5. No, it was ad-hoc and pulled out of the proposer's arse when the vote had clearly failed to make 2/3 - David Gerard (talk) 17:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
    Clearly an attempt to rescue a failure to achieve consensus for the desired lynching, per my mod-hat-on comment above - David Gerard (talk) 17:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


  1. I don't see any reason not to restart the vote from scratch with better definitions and/or moderator supervision, assuming there's an actual mobocratic case for it (and not just a bunch of concern trolling). The bottom line is to me simple: The fairness of the vote is of utmost importance. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. The benefits of doing this do not outweigh its cost in drama and fighting that is inevitable. Now we're going to have a coop case about how we should vote in coop cases? My god, this drama is unbelievable. We've had a long coop case yet again with too much drama. It should end now. That's why I proposed solutions right after the silly 7 day mandatory minimum expired. Now, we need to just get this over with instead of having more drama. PBfreespace (talk) 02:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. I think for future votes we should not have cumulative penalty votes but decide on one of several options by some reasonable means. For example we could offer several options and chose the one with the highest yes-no difference. However as it is reasonably clear what the rules for this vote are it can be grandfathered in, though we should maybe clarify the rules for future use. Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 14:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


Policy proposal for future votes (not to apply retroactively to the current vote)[edit]

I propose the following policy addition for future punishment votes or other relevant coop cases. Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 14:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

No, there's no point. Just like Trumpalos will Trumpalo, so will these do what they do. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I did sign my post above the proposal (which should not be signed). And I took the liberty to indent your post, I hope that's fine. Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 15:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
No, you screwed up my indentation. It should be a one-step to your original, not a two-step to your one-step. Indentation corrected. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Also, policy decisions are not discussed or made on the coop board. Take it to the bar. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I am sorry if this is the wrong place to bring it up, should I move this top the bar? Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 15:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Please don't comment here, the proposal should be clearly visible, that's why it's not signed[edit]

If and when a majority for punishment has been reached several proposals for punishment shall be made from which one shall be chosen by a majority vote. Every punishment that is more than a one day ban or a seven day bin shall require a positive two thirds majority.


  1. As proponent. Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 16:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


Amend (state how)[edit]

The first sentence may be assumed to be true unless the voting conventions state otherwise. Voting conventions must be given upfront. Furthermore, by the Community Standards on Voting, only a permanent ban requires a 2/3 majority in favor of it. I disagree with the second sentence on this ground. Nerd (talk) 15:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

That's why I am changing it. I think we should make it clearer what penalties require which procedures. In my opinion this will ensure more peace of mind and clearer outcomes. Having the rules be unclear is not a good idea as evidenced by this case. I want coop cases to settle issues, not smother them for a week or two until shit breaks lose again. Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
While I support your intention of clarifying the rules — in fact that was what I assumed till I read the new convention — I think it is still fair to require a 2/3 majority only for permanent bans, the most severe of all penalties. For all other disciplinary measures, a simple majority will do. Nerd (talk) 15:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Why do you think sysoprevoke, a livelong bin without the possibility of appeal or a ban of several years should get a simple majority vote? Because right now that's what the rules say. Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 15:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand what that means. Nerd (talk) 15:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
It can only be implemented (or revoked) by Mods, but it can be the result of a coop case, can't it? Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
If it is listed as an option, yes. But it is completely different from a life-long bin. Nerd (talk) 15:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Do you think a simple majority should be enough for a livelong bin? Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I do. A life-long bin is less severe than a permanent ban. Nerd (talk) 16:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I think anything above a short term ban or bin (at the most a few weeks of binning) should require several factions of the community agreeing. Which is best ensured by requiring a threshold. Two thirds seems a reasonable threshold, though three fifths or three quarters may also be doable if we so decide (given our low numbers it would however give small minorities too much veto power). Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 16:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. Let's see what people and the moderators think. Nerd (talk) 16:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Can we please stop with the fuckwitted votes?[edit]


  1. i would not trust many of you to tie your own shoelaces, and will probably think i dont mean you. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


  1. Asks and makes a new vote. Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
yes. That was the joke. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Misogyist Laurogeita[edit]

MISOGYNIST WIKI. BAN PB3. Now. Taba (talk) 21:01, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

PB3 is innocent. I used the word cunt. And I am proud of it you unpleasant unimaginative person (which is actually a harsher insult to cunt if you rub your two brain cells together). Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 21:06, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
What next? N-word for African Americans? F for gays? Please delete your account. You are not welcome here. Taba (talk) 21:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Cunt - describing a body part, coming from Latin cunnus, much less severe term in British than American English. "n-word": term of abuse invented by white racists to describe an entire group of humans on account of their skin color. Not appropriate in any context except as used by people to whom it applies themselves to break the euphemism treadmill. fag: a cigarette. Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 21:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
If you make another post trying to derail this thread, I'll block you. PBfreespace (talk) 21:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Whom are you referring to? Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 21:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Taba obviously PB (talk) 21:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up. Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 21:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
CUNT. Can't Understand Normal Thinking. Hell, that's even on mission. nobsBern baby bern 21:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeepers creepers[edit]

Alright, new vote coming right up. Gimme a sec. (talk) 20:04, 28 June 42016 AQD (UTC)

Sounds good! Anything to resolve the drama. Thanks for the swift and decisive action. PBfreespace (talk) 20:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I have a question. Do these count separately or will we only take the one with the greatest support? Nerd (talk) 20:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
The first vote determines which punishment-option we pick, the other votes determine the specifics. Choose 1 option per each seperate vote. (talk) 20:42, 28 June 42016 AQD (UTC)

Nope. Community standards says that a majority of votes cast make a decision. If one people vote for each of six options, none is in the majority. Hence why 95% of votes in the free world that are not elections are yes or no. Right now with 3, 2, 1, and 1 for votes, 4 is a majority. No decision. Taba (talk) 21:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I think you missed the "Pick 1 option" part. (talk) 22:40, 28 June 42016 AQD (UTC)
In policy votes and penalty votes dealing with a user's removal from the site (temporarily or permanently), a positive option (an option that is not "nay" or "none of the above") must accrue a two-thirds majority of votes to pass. In all other types of penalty votes, a positive option must accrue a simple majority of votes to pass.

What's the "negative option" here? Do all "positive options" count? Goat is abstain, not negative. Taba (talk) 22:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

We already had an Aye-Nay vote, remember? Now we're just deciding which positive option to go with. With a negative option it just becomes a do-over of the original vote (+spoiler effect in favor of the Nay-side). (talk) 22:34, 28 June 42016 AQD (UTC)
It will be problematic with no majority. This is silly and a waste of time. Taba (talk) 00:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

What disciplining/punishment should Typhoon get?[edit]

The option with the most support will be the one to pass (normally), but the ones with a block still need to achieve a 2/3rds majority (either against the 7 do-nothing voters of the original vote, or against the sum total of votes in other options under this header). Pick 1 option. (talk) 20:25, 28 June 42016 AQD (UTC)

It can't be 2/3 of two possible numbers, that is absurd. Votes should be yeah or nay, not options 5, 6 or 7. Taba (talk) 21:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
You make a cogent argument, not. Besides, don't you see how in favour of your side this arrangement already is? (talk) 22:45, 28 June 42016 AQD (UTC)
Indeed. If you're going to go to all this trouble to organise a lynching, you need not to make a shitshow of it at the last second - David Gerard (talk) 00:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
It's either 5-1-2-1-2, or 1-2-1-2, depending on which contrivance you are putting forth at the moment. No majority, no decision, waste of everyone's time. Taba (talk) 00:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
The simple majority was already reached by the original vote. Besides, the vote's only just started. Give people time and maybe a clear majority will pop up in this vote too. (talk) 00:49, 29 June 42016 AQD (UTC)

You are saying that you need 2/3 vote for this penalty vote, but not a majority since this isn't the penalty vote. It's a flagrant contradiction. You can't have it both ways. And nays from before count for this vote, except they don't, and some of the same people are voting. Just no. This is utter incompetence at this point. Taba (talk) 01:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

2/3 for a block option, as the rules require, since the original vote was just short of this so that's a requirement that still needs to be met. There's nothing complicated about this. (talk) 01:45, 29 June 42016 AQD (UTC)
You could have fooled me. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 01:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Um, no. The language of the first voting was for "punishment." You are now redefining it to mean blocking, or at least when it's convenient for you. It's blatantly playing with people's voting by changing what they are voting for and distorting agreed upon rules of the wiki. Taba (talk) 01:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Currently 12 total votes, 7 needed for a majority. No decision possible. Taba (talk) 01:57, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Voting just got started. Please be patient. By the community standards, voting must take between 7 and 14 days. Nerd (talk) 02:01, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I once again point to the vote that found a pretty clear majority in favour of some kind of punishment.--JorisEnter (talk) 02:02, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I guess whoever put the vote up should have thought the language through, as vague language is unenforceable. And you haven't addressed my concerns. Indeed your lot seems adept at just ignoring whatever they damn well please. Taba (talk) 02:04, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Why should people care about concerns that don't matter in the current situation? The vote is essentially a redo of the original vote now, but with the spoiler effect giving the do-nothing camp an advantage. All your complaining does is draw out the drama. Why? (talk) 02:14, 29 June 42016 AQD (UTC)
Says the person who set up how many awkward votes with how many options? Who's the problem here? Taba (talk) 02:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

And it's not conplaining. It's governance. Enforcing the agreed upon rules of the wiki. Basically, I'm trying to get you to do your job. Taba (talk) 02:19, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

If you think I've been doing something wrong, why are all your comments at the coop instead of on my talkpage? This just dilutes the vote and invites more drama. (talk) 02:25, 29 June 42016 AQD (UTC)
Honest question: wouldn't you sneer at him there too? Conscience (talk) 02:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Depends, but at least I wouldn't be extra-bothered by the spread of comments all over the vote. (talk) 02:55, 29 June 42016 AQD (UTC)


  1. Fuck this shit. Robledo (talk) 20:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
    A clear majority already decided there will be some sort of disciplining. Sorry if that's not to your liking. (talk) 20:49, 28 June 42016 AQD (UTC)
    I've removed your strikethroughs. If you insist on prolonging this abject farce, then editors should remain able to register their protest in this section.
    I also note that you appear to be the only moderator even remotely interested in giving further succour to the idiots who brought this case in the first place. Beware overreach, especially when striding out to bat for some notable cranks and cretins. Robledo (talk) 21:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
    I'll have you know I'm doing what I'm doing exactly to get this shitshow over and done with. The latter would be significantly easier if noted contrarians didn't insist on screaming at the top of their lungs at every opportunity they see, but thus is the way of things I guess. (talk) 21:42, 28 June 42016 AQD (UTC)
    Frankly I nearly removed the strikethroughs on sight as well. I've removed them now 'cos if "No" REALLY CAN get enough votes to scupper the rest, then it would be the RW way, such as it is, to let it happen - David Gerard (talk) 21:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
    @DG: But what about the consensus reach in the previous vote? The plaintiffs were after some kind of penalty other than a ban, which required only a simple majority, and a majority voted yes. Nerd (talk) 22:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
    ^This. The mob has decided that some kind of punishment is warranted; it remains to decide what penalty that should be.--JorisEnter (talk) 01:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
    For some reason, you think you have a monopoly on truth. You do not. Taba (talk) 02:13, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
    He's right. Think about it. The previous vote was about whether Typhoon should be punished; this one is about how. Nerd (talk) 02:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. That this wiki has folks who perceive this to be justice is a joke. Botched vote after botched vote supported by biased editors with no adequate justification other than edit warring, which they themselves engage in. This is embarrassing. The on,y thing to do is let this whole thing go before all the sane editors leave the wiki. Taba (talk) 21:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. The mobocracy shows how fucked up it is Sandflapjack (talk) 22:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  4. --Castaigne2 (talk) 20:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  5. Note that I prefer the least severe penalty and if this vote could be moved to a different category to make the resultant penalty less severe please move it there. Hipocrite (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Just a warning[edit]

  1. People have a right to be assholes. nobsBern baby bern 21:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. All that is needed. CorruptUser (talk) 22:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

A warning + a block[edit]

  1. Bins are for vandals, and don't expire. Blocks aren't and do. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. --Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 06:02, 29 June 2016 (UTC) 06:02, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

A warning + a binning[edit]

  1. This is reasonable, I think. Nerd (talk) 20:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. No need for a block if they're binned. Lord Aeonian (talk) 20:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Blocks are somewhat useless for someone who hasn't edited in several days, but the bin prevents her from edit warring again upon return.--JorisEnter (talk) 01:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  4. Best choice at this point. PBfreespace (talk) 02:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

A warning + a block + a binning[edit]


what is the point of the warning if they get the punishment anyway? AMassiveGay (talk) 20:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Further drives home the point. If the offender knows exactly what they did that was wrong and shouldn't recur, the bad behavior is less likely to recur. PBfreespace (talk) 20:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC) PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 20:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
What is the point of the punishment if there is no contextualisation? (talk) 20:34, 28 June 42016 AQD (UTC)
i thought the context was that farce a coop case, but i guess we really want to twist the knife AMassiveGay (talk) 20:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Do you really expect Typhoon to read that whole mothafuck of text? That's just cruel. (talk) 20:45, 28 June 42016 AQD (UTC)

BDSM Goat[edit]

  1. None of the proposed solutions are good enough. I say we handcuff them and chain them to the bed, then whip them until they call us daddy and apologize for being naughty! Yellow (talk) 20:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
    That... sounds like it'd likely violate a bunch of actual laws. (talk) 20:52, 28 June 42016 AQD (UTC)
    No torture, please! Nerd (talk) 22:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
    (EC) Maybe, but the title of the original section warranted this escape to my BDSM kink ;-) Yellow (talk) 20:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

How severe should the warning be?[edit]

The option with the most support passes. Extra options may be added, but no 'no warning' option. Pick 1 option. (talk) 20:25, 28 June 42016 AQD (UTC)

Currently 4-2-0-2. No majority, no decision. Rules are rules. Taba (talk) 00:20, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Voting just got started. A decision cannot be made. Nerd (talk) 01:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not calling anything. I'm pointing out the stupidity of this whole affair. More options than 2 makes for split votes and no majority and continues the mess. This. Is. A. Joke. You. Look. Like. Fools. Taba (talk) 02:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
It's still too early. Again, voting must be between 7 and 14 days. We'll see what happens once the smoke clears. Nerd (talk) 02:04, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Why do you embarrass the wiki with your insistence on carrying on this witch hunt? Who would come to edit here? I say burn this and hide it far, far away such that no one if possible can see. Bend that rule, instead of the ones you choose to bend. Taba (talk) 02:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
You wanna get this over with? Stop whining. We don't need more drama; we need to get this done. If you don't wanna vote, then don't. Nerd (talk) 02:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Nerd, Taba didn't express anything like wanting to get this over with no matter how. He's talking about fairness, consistency, and honesty. Conscience (talk) 02:42, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Merely noting that if this continues there will be yet another of these bloody inane coop cases[edit]

  1. Not sure if this is less severe than the trout, or the worst possible future - David Gerard (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
    note btw that no matter what anyone does, more of this shit from either side will result in such an outcome - David Gerard (talk) 00:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. By "this" I mean another circle jerk of vicious groupthinkers delighting in a mess of a proceeding that's garnered something like 600+ edits. Some of you liars even claim to be anti-drama, all while virtually ensuring this will be an ongoing embarrassment. There is no sense in attempting to characterize the so-called severity of a warning without specifying what exactly the warning is. You need to state the language of the warning, who will give the warning, and what the consequences of violating the warning would be, or this is a shameful farce. Conscience (talk) 23:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
    +1 --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
    As predicted. (talk) 23:42, 28 June 42016 AQD (UTC)
    Your response is lazy and dishonest. You might as well have stuck up the DFTT template. I have not screamed at the top of my lungs at any opportunity, but coherently expressed an idea you dislike, and therefore you dislike me and are apparently perfectly happy lying. Even if you dislike me, don't deceitfully claim that I'm doing something I'm not. Instead, foster the perception that fairness and truth matter to you and your bully buddies. For the record, I think Typhoon is as toxic as I think you are, but more important than jumping on this hatewagon is to make sure that he or she is treated fairly. Don't be a baby. Conscience (talk) 00:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
    A ridiculous demand for ridiculously detailed proposals is not you seizing the opportunity to be contrarian at the detriment of everyone with better things to pay attention to? Could've fooled me. (talk) 02:05, 29 June 42016 AQD (UTC)
    I like how Conscience basically said "I agree Typhoon is toxic, but I'm going to hold up proceedings anyway just to get at you" Lord Aeonian (talk) 02:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
    Dismissing by innuendo instead of logic is lame. Seriously, what is wrong with you people. Taba (talk) 02:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
    Children (I hope you're not grown adults), this is easy. You have to be fair or it's a railroad. IP mod, I don't believe you really think telling people what they're actually voting for is ridiculously detailed. At least I hope you don't. I think you're fighting because you feel cornered. Aeonian, be honest with yourself. Did I basically say that or did I urge something you'd think is fair if this were happening to someone you liked? Small words and a short sentence for both of you: what is this warning going to be? Warnings are usually in the form of: you better not ___ or ___, as in: you better not edit Sanders or you're going to get blocked for a week. FFS topic bans are a thing, people. Conscience (talk) 02:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Taba (talk) 01:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Just a trout-splatting on their talkpage[edit]

  1. --Castaigne2 (talk) 20:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Note that I prefer the least severe penalty and if this vote could be moved to a different category to make the resultant penalty less severe please move it there. Hipocrite (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

An uninterested, wishy-washy warning[edit]

A stern warning[edit]

  1. Edit warring is a serious offense, especially when you spend an hour doing nothing but reverting and desysoping another user. PB (talk) 20:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Typhoon is just too abrasive. This seems appropriate. Nerd (talk) 20:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. and a finger waving in his face, too. nobsBern baby bern 21:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  4. Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  5. --Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 06:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC) 06:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


  1. what exactly is a stern warning? Does it involve a potty mouth and all caps? Presuming all warnings involve the threat of some action, wont all the options be stern? Does anyone actually think about the options before putting them here? Is the mobocracy less than the sum of its parts? AMassiveGay (talk) 07:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

If there is a block, how long should it be?[edit]

The option with the most support passes. Pick 1 option. (talk) 20:25, 28 June 42016 AQD (UTC)

pi seconds[edit]

  1. Consistent with RW tradition. Taba (talk) 01:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

1 week[edit]

  1. Note that I prefer the least severe penalty and if this vote could be moved to a different category to make the resultant penalty less severe please move it there. Hipocrite (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

A million seconds[edit]

  1. 11 days seems just about right. It will give a serious message to the offender and will prevent further drama involving them in the intervening time. PBfreespace (talk) 20:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Likewise. Nerd (talk) 20:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Lord Aeonian (talk) 20:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  4. Probs the better option.--JorisEnter (talk) 01:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  5. --Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 06:04, 29 June 2016 (UTC) 06:04, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

4 weeks[edit]

42 days[edit]

If there is a binning how long should it be[edit]

What does "please specify" mean for voting? It's unclear what people are voting for. Taba (talk) 00:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Some predetermined time (please specify)[edit]

  1. Note that I prefer the least severe penalty and if this vote could be moved to a different category to make the resultant penalty less severe please move it there. Thus, 10^-44 seconds, the smallest meaningful unit of time. Hipocrite (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. 0 seconds. --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
    This is effectively a no vote, and as such should not be counted. I'd be shocked if the lead mod here disagrees. PB (talk) 21:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
    Do not change my vote, asshat. A pre-determined time was asked for. I gave one. If you don't like it, fuck off. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. One month with a reevaluation after half that time and pardoning if no misbehavior has occurred. Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 21:20, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  4. I second the motion for zero seconds Sandflapjack (talk) 22:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  5. 0 seconds, agreed. Taba (talk) 00:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  6. Pi seconds. CorruptUser (talk) 04:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

As long as we damn well please[edit]

  1. The problem with a predetermined time is that it encourages the user to simply wait until that time is up to continue the bad behavior. Without an instant re-bin clause, the behavior is much more likely to recur. Mods do have the authority to overturn this bin if there's a consensus among them. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 20:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. A conditional sentence sounds good to me. Nerd (talk) 20:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Could we edit the title, please? Otherwise I agree. Lord Aeonian (talk) 20:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

What the hell is wrong with you people?[edit]

Typhoon hasn't done anything onsite for a week. I see about five separate (& presumably inconclusive) votes in the coop thread that was recently archived & nearly as many again recreated again since. Is whatever she did really worth all this fuss? WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

^^^This, right here! Yellow (talk) 00:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I'd say end this and declare a mistrial.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC) 00:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I'd say end it and declare the case dismissed. Yellow (talk) 00:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Wouldn't that be the same thing?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC) 00:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Not necessarily. Please vote below. Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 00:32, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
No, which is why I'm trying to conclude it in an orderly fashion so we can finally move on. Though some seem intent on not allowing this. (talk) 00:34, 29 June 42016 AQD (UTC)
Well since this coop has started the drama on other pages has decreased. I fear if we end this coop inconclusive that might change. Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 00:36, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Well what can anyone do? This whole thing has been a dumpster fire but w/o clear rules on how to handle the coop anything can happen here and result in absolutely nothing but more toxic behavoir.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC) 00:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
If Typhoon isn't around, then let's just follow existing sentiment in the above section. Take some kind of action, be it vandal-binning, a brief block, or something along those lines, and then nuke this case from orbit. It's the only way to stop the drama. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 01:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
"Orderly?" You have got to be kidding me. This is chaos. I suspect Typhoon is roaring in laughter somewhere. Taba (talk) 01:36, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
As orderly a fashion as is humanly possible on this page. PB (talk) 02:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
You wanna help? Stop whining! Nerd (talk) 02:42, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Nope. It's not worth the fuss at all. It's a personal grudge that has metastasized due to pomposity. Also, these n00bs don't understand how the coop works. --Castaigne2 (talk) 02:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

One vote, with two options and a chance to abstain is orderly. Four votes with four options is not. Taba (talk) 02:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I think there are two things the coop should achieve[edit]

Peace and justice.

Now the only question before we close this coop (or continue with it) is do we have achieved peace and justice?
I would argue that if not peace then quiet has been reached on the Bernie Clinton fight. And whether the person who ostensibly got this thing started against her not editing for a week is some sort of justice I am not here to judge. Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 00:32, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Are you joking? To pretend that the Bernie Clinton fight is somehow over when this show trial has resulted in nearly 700 edits to this page, with some of the proponents of stringing the editor up resorting to gaming the proceedings, is simply dishonest. Conscience (talk) 01:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
It's true, no edit warring of note has occurred at the Bernie and Hillary pages lately. Instead we've had a ceaseless edit-marathon on Typhoon's coop case. Whether this is an improvement is certainly debatable. (talk) 01:07, 29 June 42016 AQD (UTC)

Has peace and justice been achieved?
You bet your hindquarters
Not a bloody bit
I know only one king and his name is Stark

No extra votes, please! (talk) 01:00, 29 June 42016 AQD (UTC)

This is another inane vote and you're just perpetuating drama by insisting it stay up[edit]

  1. Conscience (talk) 00:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. --Castaigne2 (talk) 02:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Just bin Typhoon and end it. Lord Aeonian (talk) 05:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


  1. --Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 01:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC) 01:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Get it over and take some action against the user in question. PB (talk) 01:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

My friends, topic bans are a thing[edit]

Spare yourselves the shame of handling this so poorly and go for the literal actual fucking goat and topic ban this editor for however long from the topics he or she are using to cause you trouble. Bam. No ridiculous subjective unspecified warnings. No guessing about what "punishment" will get through to an inveterate edit warrior who has taken a wiki break while being pilloried. No bans. No bins that affect potentially helpful work. Just vote to give the moderators discretion to block for reasonable times if the editor makes a single edit to prohibited topics. I'll leave it to you to decide what those are. But be fair about the scope or this will continue to be a problem. He or she may have something meaningful to add that is tangentially related to what you hate him or her for. Plus, you're morons for going so nuclear. Conscience (talk) 06:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Yay, yet another option to ceaselessly talk about and vote on whether and how to implement. Since when were topic bans a thing RW bothered with for that matter? (talk) 06:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Addressing this on the merits as a general framework for all of your content related shit fests, would that kind of facile response be what you give? Now, I get the impression you're not as bright or pragmatic as you think you are, so I'm hoping to be surprised. Answer seriously without your penchant for facile dismissal and characterization. Conscience (talk) 06:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Further, I'll point out that these articles are mission tangential. Not exactly opposite, but most certainly not worth war over. And it is war you're conducting poorly. Conscience (talk) 06:57, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
My penchant? Good sir, that's everybody's penchant here. Which prominently includes you too. (talk) 07:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Example please. Conscience (talk) 07:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)