RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive53

Regarding Laurogeita Hamabost

I have temporarily vandal binned Laurogeita Hamabost because he (along with Jagulard) have been on a ceaseless edit war over labeling entries in the WIGO:Blogs.

Laurogeita has been concern trolling the Saloon Bar about sources they don't like, The Intercept and Al Jazeera specifically; eventually, RBP put up a vote in the WIGO:Blogs, but instead of waiting out the results, Laurogeita continued to spread this moronic crusade to WIGO:W.

All I am asking is that Laurogeita loses his sysop tools over this edit war.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Should Laurogeita be desysopped?

Yes

1. Of course. Not worthy of the tools. PBfreespace (talk) 23:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

   "PB here, to help put out the fire! With gasoline!" xD Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

   "RBP here, poor metaphor to try and make some kind of vague point!" PBfreespace (talk) 00:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

2. Based on LH's attempt to continue their crusade to multiple pages, I think it would be irresponsible to allow them to keep their sysop tools.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
3. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

No

1. "Concern trolling" isn't against the rules (and is strictly in the eye of the beholder). Impulsively taking away someone's sysop and vandal binning them in a two-pronged attack is against the rules, however. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

   As I explained to you on my talk page, I desysopped them in order to bin them but, as of this writing, I have restored their rights.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

   From what I can see, you only ever vandal binned and desysoped Laurogeita, not Jagulard. Furthermore, you reinstated Laurogeita's sysop, though you did not parole him from the vandal bin (nor did he parole himself, being a sysop). I paroled him, however. I don't suspect foul play; I just beat you both to it, I think. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

   I didn't coop or desysop Jagulard because they didn't continue to this crusade after a vote was put forth on the talkpage nor did Jagulard spread this crusade to WIGO:W.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

   Fair enough. I suppose that's a feather in your cap in regards to the below vote, at any rate. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

2. -DιαμοπdDιςc1(talk) 23:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
3. Cease fire! Cease fire! If they want to label the items, let them do it. No harm done. Nerd271 (talk) 23:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

   Keep in mind that over here is where the vote on labeling is taking place. The charges against Laurogeita in this coop case are: allegedly edit warring, allegedly "concern trolling" and allegedly "not waiting out the results of the ongoing labeling vote". Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

   I realize what you're saying. I'm just thinking the on-going edit war and coop case are unnecessary. Perhaps a moderator should intervene? Nerd271 (talk) 23:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

   Don't worry, people intervened instantly and Owlman graciously gave sysop back to Laurogeita anyways. There's no fire. There's just a coop case. And once a user decides to start a coop case, he's decided to rally the people. What we can do to help is to discuss the issue and to vote on it. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

4. Considering that Wikipedia doesn't use Al Jazeera for many issues unless the article goes against Al Jazeera's biases, this is not concern trolling. CorruptUser (talk) 23:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

   Even so, surely you don't think concern trolling would be actual grounds for revoking someone's sysop?! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

   Probably not. Unless he's abusing his sysop tools, then I suppose it really isn't an issue, is it? Haven't given it much thought, but in honesty it's irrelevant because the sources are questionable. CorruptUser (talk) 23:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

   (EC) Whether Al Jazeera is reliable or not isn't the matter here. LH continued to spread this crusade to label links to WIGO:W while the community was voting on whether or not labeling all sources should be a policy; I brought up LH's opinions on certain sources to show that this is a stealth attempt to label sources they don't like. Since LH should've had a reasonable expectation that there was a disagreement to labeling all posted by all, then they should've expected that an edit war could break out on multiple pages, that is why I brought this case to the coop.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

5. That's all just an attempt to let biased or even propagandist sources fly in under the radar.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 23:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC) 23:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

   Everything has a bias, everything is propaganda but if you want to whine about go to the vote on labeling.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

   That's an excuse a la "everyone is a little bit racist, so it's OK for me to be VERY racist".--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 23:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC) 23:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

   STRAWMAN!!!!! When did this have anything to do with race? Please quit with your terrible analogies. We should not be forced to label all our sources when you can just click the fucking link and see that it's a source you don't trust. It's that simple. Why wage a jihad to force everyone to label sources? PBfreespace (talk) 00:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

   He claimed, that everyone is biased and everything is propaganda and that it is therefore OK to use biased sources. My analogy was spot-on.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 00:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC) 00:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

   I may certainly be oversimplifying what you said but this idea that I am trying to push "biased" sources is ridiculous. Yeah, everyone has bias, and that may not be okay, but to conflate bias and racism is a false analogy. Regardless, this idea that I am somehow acting outside the norm by individually determining what sources I link to are or aren't objective is bizarre to me, that has been the status quo.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

   No, I'm not conflating racism and bias. --The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 05:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC) 05:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

6. Even if multiple of my recent interactions have caused me severe retinal injuries due to radical eye rolling, I see no abuse and this is quite silly. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 04:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
7. No, as per most of the above. Bongolian (talk) 04:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
8. Give it a rest. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
9. --Castaigne2 (talk) 14:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
10. Do I have to give a reason for my vote? I am not the Ombud's man 15:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Goat

• Please correct me if I've not understood this right, for the record. Jagulard and Laurogeita have been on one side of the undoing, you on the other. My question is: how is this different from their version having consensus (as in, being two editors against one)? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

  Normally, community consensus on a rule is established by voting on a rule. Based on said vote, it appears the majority is against instating a labeling policy.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I won't come back, I'll NEVER COME BACK, but here's my screed anyway because I just can't resist.

Glad to see you again, Mona. I very much enjoyed those salty tears you shed as your savior lost the primary. Much gloating was had. Going to gloat again when Clinton wins too. --Castaigne2 (talk) 14:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, don't erase coop cases. --Castaigne2 (talk) 14:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Owlman

Allow me to quote myself from Owlman's talkpage:

First of all, desysopping is an example of a punishment that the mob should vote on in the coop; it's not for you to haphazardly enact — in order to intimidate and harass — like Mona or Ryulong would. The fact that you combined the desysopping with vandal binning the guy means that you've essentially attempted to plug his ability to represent himself as well. Not cool.

Second of all, where's the "non-stop edit warring"? Laurogeita's last 100 edits contain three undos. Your last 100 edits contain ten undos. Now, I wouldn't call those ten "edit warring". And by extension, you likely realise if I agree with you that Laurogeita's three undos constitute "non-stop edit warring".

You better have one hell of a case to present at the coop, or you might just see your own sysop revoked by the mob. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Worth adding is that Jagulard appears to have four undos in his past 100 edits.

Now, don't consider this as "me cooping Owlman", for the record. I'm not. But I am intending this vote as the obvious extension of the above, in light of the controversial disciplinary actions already taken by Owlman, and ultimately as part of the wider coop case above. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Should Owlman be desysopped?

Yes

1. --Castaigne2 (talk) 14:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

No

1. Again, cease fire! Nerd271 (talk) 23:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
2. No good reason. PB (talk) 23:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
3. I don't know why he does it; my guess is he either thinks the WIGOs are his to run, or maybe he has an agenda to push. But all in all, I appreciate that he's put a lot of effort into the WIGOs, and that effort has been for the better. I don't want to punish him– rather, I want him to continue adding entries, but to do so with a lot more maturity and respect for ideas he doesn't like. Jagulard (talk) 03:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
4. Give it a rest. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
5. No. But please don't be so hasty to coop next time, Owlman. And keep calm with the userrights and vandal bin panels, would ya? Thanks. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
6. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Goat

• I'm not sure that he should. But Owlman has summoned the mob above; so let the mob speak. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
• We should hold a raffle to punch Owlman in the face, and the proceeds go to the Rationalwiki foundation. But rig the raffle so instead of punching, it's puppies. Puppies in your face! But we can probably settle this without resorting to desysoping anyone. CorruptUser (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

  That would likely be ideal. Though, a part of me honestly didn't feel right about Owlman's desysop + vandal bin combo move. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

  That does sound like an abuse of sysop powers. I'd vote "Warn Owlman not to do it again". CorruptUser (talk) 23:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• Stern warning not to do it again.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 23:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC) 23:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
• I honestly don't understand what is to be voted on here. I already resysopped LH, RBP has unvandal binned them, and my reasons for cooping them are above. Since RBP wants me to comment, I desysopped, binned, and cooped LH because they continued to try and label links in WIGO:World which I interpreted as trying to spread their crusade; instead of starting an edit war I decided that I ought to settle the dispute in the coop.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

  Actually, it's the other Goat section I meant for you to reply to. You know, the one about Laurogeita? Where I've asked you a question? Thanks. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

• I think we can let him off with a warning this time, but this behavior is really not helpful. I am not the Ombud's man 15:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

  Speaking of behaviour that isn't helpful... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Archiving time?

* dons Mod Hat * 

Rev Percy suggests as participant, and I concur with [mod hat on], that this episode of RW's favourite permanent floating flamewar has probably reached a conclusion of its dramatic arc, until of course next time. Will archive shortly if there are no remaining substantive issues - David Gerard (talk) 16:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Archive away after some minimal minimum time has passed. Are there rules for that? There should be. I am not the Ombud's man 16:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it's something like 24 or 48 hours, but don't quote me on that. It's in the rules, somewhere... I think. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

David: you vandal-binned both Avengerofthe BoN and Pizzameister. It must be obvious by now that Laurogeita Hamabost and Jagulard are yet more manifestations the same user, and are engaging in the same kind of bad faith editing & disruptive behaviour that got their previous accounts binned. Wouldn't it save us a lot of time & drama to deal with them now rather than go through more of this crap? Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I must say, after the last Coop Laurogeita has basically been holding a giant neon sign saying "I AM AVENGER" - also, they seem to be interested in an image that a whole bunch of BoNs have an obsession with.--JorisEnter (talk) 18:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

And most of us were convinced of that fact. That being said however, me and Ikanreed (among others) will remind everyone that we (ought to) ban behaviour, not people. Again, this is why we don't even want CheckUser (not that it'd work, but I digest). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

So if I get sent to prison for murder and I break out of jail, change my name, and get plastic surgery, and I don't kill anyone in the intervening time (only punch a few people), I should be allowed to walk free because "we (ought to) ban behaviour, not people"? This is a crazy standard, Reverend Black Percy. What's more, Laurogeita/Avenger is continuing some of the same behavior (edit warring, obsession, calling names) that got him binned in the first place! Why should he not be binned? PB (talk) 00:28, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

*Time to archive already intensifies* Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Here Laurogeita admits he is partly Jewish, just like Avenger. The evidence is piling up right before our eyes and yet some are still calling for the case to be closed. Ridiculous. PBfreespace (talk) 01:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

For which case to be closed? The above one regarding the WIGO and Owlman, or the long-closed coop case you started? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight!-DιαμοπdDιςc1(talk) 02:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think either one should be closed. Let the vote play out for the next few days. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 02:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, "Laurogeita admits he is partly Jewish, just like Avenger" is a totally non-disturbing point to make, and is in fact a crucial pice of evidence that not only will the vote change here, but will also be a resounding call to reopen and overturn PB3's embarrassing failure at a coop. Also, Mona may come back again to tell us she's not coming back, again. Who would want to miss that? Jagulard (talk) 02:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Him being Jewish means he's part of 0.002% of the population, since there are ~15 million Jews and 7.5 billion people. How many of those Jews don't speak English well and edit RationalWiki regularly with a Zionist bias? Turns out a couple. There are 747 sysops here, and a few thousand total users. Really, how many of those are Jewish who edit with a pro-Zionist bias and can't help but get into edit wars over a map of Palestine on one article? PBfreespace (talk) 02:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Weaseloid putting User:Laurogeita Hamabost and User:Jagulard into sysoprevoke

I am very sorry for having to open this coop case and I would have liked to avoid it, but it seems impossible. As you can see in the headline, User:Weaseloid has put me and User:Jagulard into sysoprevoke. First of all, I would like to get my former status as a sysop back and think that Jagulard would also deserve that, but he can speak for himself. Furthermore, I invite the community to debate whether such unilateral actions at what is not exactly the most edit heavy time of this wiki are befitting of a moderator. I hope we can come to some amiable resolution to this unfortunate incident and will probably go offline soon in order to reassess the situation with a calmer mind at a later time. I will try to refrain from personal accusations or political passions and thus conclude with the petition for all sides to speak up, speak fairly, speak clearly and at the end extend the hand in a spirit of peace and brotherhood. I am not the Ombud's man 03:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Here is the problem, Lauvenger Hameister; you've been kind of a dick. You need to learn to back off. The Saloon Bar basically said "no, we aren't requiring sources to be named since we can just hover over them", then you got in a fight with Weaseloid over it in spite of losing. I don't think you should be sysoprevoke, and I do think that we should be allowed to edit the WIGO to add sources, but I also think you don't know when to back down even if the other person is "unreasonable" in order to avoid pointless drama. So while I don't think you should be sysoprevoke, I do believe you should face some punishment until you stop butting heads with people. CorruptUser (talk) 04:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

A few points I'd like to make:

1) Thank you, LH, but I have no wish to be a sysop. i am new to this wiki, and only edit when I have free time, which is not often. So I would not exercise that responsibility well. Nor have i established a reputation deserving of trust (yes, I know, that seems not to matter here). Nevertheless, to me, it should mean something, even when it clearly does not.

2) It is a rather silly issue that should never have gone this far. It's about identifying sources, for crying out loud- a small thing, from which no harm could possibly come. I do not agree with LH that they should be required for anyone posting an entry, but I see no problem with other users adding them–and from what I've read in discussion of this elsewhere, it seems the community agrees. I followed this consensus, and both Owlman and Weaseloid chose to ban me for it.

3) I have no issue with Weaseloid, although he claims that I am a sockpuppet of LH. I'm not going to take the steps necessary to prove otherwise, so he is free to think so. However, It's clear that Weaseloid and Owlman, having decisively failed to get their way in previous coops, have now resorted to abusing their position. According to the same rules that they wish to hide behind, this should be addressed. The Present King of France (talk) 05:09, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh my god. Do you even believe this? It's so obvious, Avenger! How could anyone not have seen it at this point? Weaseloid doesn't accuse "Jagulard" of being a sockpuppet of Laurogeita, yet this Jagulard person decides to claim he did?

You're throwing a whole ton of mumbo jumbo around at us expecting us to just shut up and give you sysop status already, and you honestly think we're not supposed to see through this ruse? PBfreespace (talk) 06:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

The fact is, you've made yourself look embarrassing throughout all this. So there are 2 ways you can try and come out of it:

• You can continue to whine and bitch and complain about all these evil people restricting your rights, which won't get you anywhere and will make people like you even less.

• You stop being a dick and stop trying to force everyone to use a certain source standard for editing. Also, you stop the legal talk and lawyering.

One of these actually has a chance of getting you somewhere where you wa::nt. Guess which one? PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 06:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for helping to make my point, PBF. You can look at the previous coop case to see Weaseloid's accusation. Also, I'm sorry my writing is hard for you to follow, but I've been writing this way for decades, and certainly won't change it for you. The Present King of France (talk) 04:36, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

A ban or revocation of sysop rights can only be done by Coop vote. Weaseloid went and did it without, so a Mod should give Laurogeita Hamabost his sysop rights back and tell Weaseloid to take it to the Coop if he want to take away LH's sysop tools.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 11:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC) 11:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I also propose a cooping of PB3, since he seems so enthusiastic at the idea of open violations of other user's rights without any real reason. Would seem to be only fair. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 13:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

According to PBF's reasoning in his coop, he is clearly a sock of Owlman and/or Mona. You should consider charging all of them. 04:36, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

The accusation that Jagulard is a sock of Avenger was indeed made in the previous coop case. And while I never called for all articles to carry sources, I cannot find any evidence for adding sources to be a bannable offense or something worth edit warring over. I may have overreacted a bit, but I dare say I am not alone in this. I hope we can get over any lingering bad blood, but if we can not, I hope we can at least get to some workable agreement. I do think however, that some other mod should revert the sysoprevoke for the time being as it was clearly the action of one lone user. @Jagulard, while sysop is a thing that might be abused, the only defense to others abusing their sysop (e.g. by banning or binning you) is for you to have sysop in turn. You are of course free to not want it, but I think the actions of some involved here show that banning and binning can be handed out like candy without rhyme or reason. On another note, please make the Captcha go away. I am not the Ombud's man 14:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, LH, but as I said earlier, I still do not care about being a sysop, and I do not expect to become one anytime soon. If I edited more frequently, perhaps I would think differently—but at the moment, my accusers seem incapable of making the simplest of arguments, so I think simple reason should suffice to defend myself. The Present King of France (talk) 04:36, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

PBF3 carries on the tradition of Mona of accusing everyone he disagrees with to be a sock of someone.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 14:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC) 14:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

So what? Does whether he's a sockpuppet or not excuse his behavior? I think not. Blatant edit warring and refusal to understand other users requests to stop just won't cut it. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 15:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

If you're so concerned with his behavior, then concern yourself with his behavior. Throwing around accusations of sockpuppetry is useless. Nobody but you wants to rally the pitchforks. You're flailing at shadows. B) talk 16:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your useful criticism, Bshaw. I have followed your above and opened up a penalty vote to address the misbehavior in question. PBfreespace (talk) 17:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Actual discussion of the question at hand, no vote yet: should they stay sysoprevoked?

* dons Mod Hat * 

Discuss first. Any votes in the next 24 hours will be collapsed. - David Gerard (talk) 19:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Let's make that 48, so far it's mostly Avenger having a conversation with himself - David Gerard (talk) 20:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussion of this point

Yeah. It's going to save us a lot of time squabbling through endless dramas & coop cases getting to that point, as we did with the original Avenger account. There's been no improvement in conduct nor indication of any intent to respect community norms & opinions, and it's a waste of everyone's time to keep having to debate over his nonsense & revert his interference with the WIGO pages. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes. There has been too much drama lately and something has to give. If these users are sysoprevoked, it will prevent them from engaging in the kind of edit warring that has helped start all this, Furthermore, it will teach them a lesson not to stir shit for no good reason. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 20:05, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

To me the more salient point is the binning, given that Weaseloid has announced to take away the sysop of anybody who dare question him on it. I think that until the coop hands down its judgment, nobody should be binned, as it severely hampers their ability to state their case. I hereby once more ask for the bin to be reverted, please. I am not the Ombud's man 20:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

If anybody could explain me what the consensus on the WIGO thing was, I vow to follow it. But to me the result was only clear on the point that we don't require sources to be added to every entry. There never was any consensus to outlaw adding sources to any given WIGO entry or several of them. I am actually a bit saddened by the fact that you cannot let calm prevail and behave yourself more like one of the representatives of this wiki should. I am not the Ombud's man 20:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

To be quite clear, the "edit war" was over the question whether the word "Arab" (which had been there for months contested by nobody) should be mentioned in an article on Israel. I am not the Ombud's man 20:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Binning

Weaseloid has binned two users (me and Jagulard) and threatened everybody who reverts this action with their mop being taken away. As it seems quite clear that every punishment should have community consensus in its favor before being implemented, I am now here to ask for Weaseloid to give a concrete case for the punishment and let the mob decide. If I am correctly informed until the mob does in fact agree, this punishment is to be withdrawn. Or am I reading this wrong? What would happen for example, should another moderator disagree with the "mod decision" made apparently by Weaseloid on his own? I am not the Ombud's man 21:02, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

So far, no mod has. Let's cross that bridge when we come to it, eh? PB (talk) 21:22, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Take a look through the vandal bin. It contains over a 1,000 accounts. I don't know how many of them got there because of a "community consensus before being implemented" but I reckon it's less than twenty, probably less than ten. Maybe you should forget about trying to lecture on the site policies to users who understand them better than you and try to justify your actions and/or explain how you intend to reform them in future. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Well at the very least when people started reverting you (which I'd wager has not happened for the "over a 1000 accounts" on the bin list), you should have started a debate instead of announcing to take away the sysop right of anybody who would challenge you. I thought this wiki was supposed to be a mobocracy, not a modocracy. But I may well be wrong, in this case, I lay myself to thy feet oh great moderator overlord Weaseloid, first of his name, defender of the faith (etc. etc.). I am not the Ombud's man 21:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh my goodness! How absolutely smashing! What humor! What wordplay! PBfreespace (talk) 23:52, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight!-DιαμοπdDιςc1(talk) 00:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Thoughts

A 10-3 case in favour of no action against LH was archived on 30th Sept. Weaseloid wasn't happy with the outcome. Less than 48 hours later, he sysoprevokes LH after reverting his edits to WIGO:World and Blogs.

Unless Weaseloid can point to any egregious bad behaviour in those ~48 hours, it's difficult to see this "decision" as anything other than a mod swinging his e-penis about in a fit of pique. Robledo (talk) 02:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Well LH continued to try and label links in WIGO:W and WIGO:Blogs which had already been edit warred, as seen by the previous coop case, and has a vote in WIGO:BLOGs which showed that users overwhelmingly were against the idea that labeling links should be mandatory; LH voted in that case and lost so they decided to continue this dumb crusade. They then edit warred with Weasel, a mod, and got desysopped.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

That's kind of my point, though, isn't it? LH edit warred with you, and the consensus was "meh". He edit warred over the same trivial shite with a mod, and got desyopped. How is that not dick swinging? Robledo (talk) 10:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't have any strong opinions here but your point is logical. It is certainly annoying to have to edit war over trivial shit.Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

And poof

I see the Wurlitzer of Mona-related account has now blocked LH forever, for reasons. Hipocrite (talk) 12:45, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

How it all started

I think that in order for users to make a reasonable decision, they should be able to judge for themselves whether LH and I were trying to cause problems or acting in good faith. Why not let the facts speak for themselves, and let the community decide whether Weaseloid acted responsibly? To that end, I have collected the pertinent links into a sort of timeline that explains the buildup to the actual edit wars.

1. First time (recently) that a source was labeled: 11 August, LH labels an Intercept entry
2. Second time: 30 August, Owlman labels the American Conservative
3. Curiously, more than a month after it was posted, on 13 September, Owlman removes LH's Intercept label
4. Third time: 17 September, LH adds label to Al Jazeera entry. Twelve minutes later, Owlman removes LH's label, claiming that "there's no reason to object to Al Jazeera." LH objects, questioning Al Jazeera's objectivity. Owlman replies with the news that he is now the arbiter of reliability. After some talk page discussion about the reliability of Al Jazeera, LH lets the matter go.
5. Fourth time: 18 September, Owlman adds a label to an American Conservative entry
6. On 20 September, Owlman adds an entry about “Apartheid” that is actually about Israel. Later that day, LH adds a clarification that the article is in fact about Israel, not South African apartheid. Owlman removes the clarification. A discussion about clarifying article descriptions ensues on the talk page.
7. Fifth time: 24 September, Owlman labels another American Conservative entry
8. Sixth time: 24 September, LH labels a Commentary entry
9. Seventh time: 25 September, LH labels one of Owlman’s Intercept entries. Owlman reverts, requiring “a good objection” for labels (since he is, in fact, arbiter of reliability). And that’s when I got involved. The edit wars begin.

I have tried to include every pertinent entry up to, but not including, the wars themselves. If I missed have missed any, please include them below. The Present King of France (talk) 07:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I guess you forgot to link to the threads where you tried the goad the community into supporting your nonsense, were told a resounding NO, but still keep claiming against all evidence that you think there's a "consensus" in favour of your stupid proposals (here, here, here, here). Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Your first citation shows that my original item number four was unclear, so I have edited it. Your second event is already mentioned in item number six. The last two occurred after the edit wars began, and I clearly stated that this timeline only covers posts that led up to it. Nevertheless, I am sure the community will be interested in trying to find a "resounding no" to the voluntary addition of labels. The Present King of France (talk) 07:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Jagulard for the very brief but succinct summary of events leading up to the edit war. We can see there that the problem seems to be that labels were de facto considered applicable when the source was considered "bad". That seems to be the origin of the objection to labeling sources. There has indeed been no consensus as to whether sources can be labeled, but there has been a consensus that they don't have to be labeled. A minor, but unfortunately crucial distinction. If that impression is in error, I am sure someone can point it out to me by linking to relevant discussions or previous edits. I hope that even those not involved (and frankly, rightfully uninterested) in the current drama can now get a picture with more background and adjudicate this case better. If a summary for what Pbfreespace3 and I did over at the Israel and Palestine pages is needed, I will provide it, but I think the salient points are in their page histories and in the Saloon Bar where I tried to get a third opinion before things got out of hand and people mostly did not care (as is their right) before Pbfreespace3 ultimately unilaterally took away my mop and banned me for an hour, which drew enough ire of other editors that they restored my mop and reprimanded Pbfreespace3 via the block message system. If a consensus that clarifies what has to be done for WIGO sources and what cannot be done is reached, I will of course follow it, but I recall quite clearly that at more than one point I explicitly asked the question of whether sources can be added even if there is a consensus that they don't have to be added only to get no response. At any rate, I hope we can all calm down a bit. I am not the Ombud's man 17:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

^This is what we're up against, folks. Stay tuned for more sealioning. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

And what the fuck else did you think was going to happen, you flamin' fucking eejit? This will generate thousands of words, and you'll probably end up having to eat shit on your "decision" because you've snapped and acted like a dick. As I said on your talk page: smooth move, son, and bound to end well.

If you'd really wanted to pull the trigger on LH effectively, you'd've put your mod hat on, given him an official cease & desist with defined consequences for non-compliance, and let him either (probably) hang himself or (unlikely) wind his neck in.

Moderation: not fucking rocket science. Robledo (talk) 22:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Do try to be fair, Robledo. None of the mods have shown any sort of responsibility here, so clearly your idea of moderation is not the same as theirs. The Present King of France (talk) 05:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

This user has griefed the site under various accounts for over a year. They have had many warnings & always react exactly as here: with a pretence of wounded innocence (who me? what did I do wrong?), lots of nagging & wheedling, derailing, accusations, trying to dictate site policy, insisting that people explain or debate issues on his terms long after they're a lost cause, etc. etc. It's a waste of everybody's time & why he belongs in the vandal bin until he learns not to be so disruptive. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I am sure you can point me to the exact place where I "lost" the debate on whether sources can be added to WIGO entries. Also, it would be kind of you to explain what "griefing" is. I only know grieving and that's got nothing to do with anything here. I am not the Ombud's man 15:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

That's griefing.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 15:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC) 15:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Almost all of those have to do with online games. Also, on the issue that kicked of the latest drama, I am of course willing to accept consensus to never add sources to any WIGO or to never edit a WIGO I did not personally create or whatever the consensus might be. In fact, I would even be willing to enforce such a policy if I were ever in the position to do so. The only thing it would take for me to accept such a consensus is its existence. But - and nobody has yet shown me to be wrong on this - the only consensus that was ever achieved is that we don't require sources to be added to every WIGO entry. The mob was silent - or at the very least not anywhere near consensus - on the issue of adding sources to WIGO entries if a user wants to and whether the original authorship of the entry should matter in that. I have really tried to point this out more than once now and I have also tried to have this resolved (which it still isn't) and I was not even warned before this shower of penalties was rained down upon me. Similarly, in the dispute with Pbfreespace3 over the mention of the word "Arab", I went to the saloon bar almost immediately to settle the conflict expressly asking for a "neutral voice" to arbitrate. I want to remind people that Pbfreespace3 was the one arguing for a change to the status quo and reverted me pretty much the same number of times I reverted him, so it is really inconceivable how what I did was bad and what he did was okay. If that is the equivalent of shooting teammates in an online game, I know less about video games than I ever thought. I am not the Ombud's man 18:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Let me give an incredibly long, unreadable wall of text to explain how I'm right and Pbfreespace3 is wrong. I'm so unfairly persecuted! Stuff like that. PBfreespace (talk) 04:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

PB3 permabanning Laurogeita

I'm not saying I like wiki-lawyer Laurogeita or that I support her arguments.
But we don't unilaterally permaban people based on personal dislike, personal suspicions of being a sock, or while they have a coop going on.
Don't want to coop PB3 yet, despite him being a humorless hipster fuck that likes to engage in paranoid personal insults. So, post it here instead. Let a mod or a sysop take the appropriate actions. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Ban lifted by me. Vandal brake remains in force. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 15:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Very cool of you. --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:55, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Stop swinging your e-penis around.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 19:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC) 19:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't see why PB3's ass shouldn' get cooped. If he gets away with that kind of egregious behaviour, he's logically going to do it again. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 20:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Before we do that, we should decide whether Jagulard and I should remain in the Bin and sysoprevoked. I defer on superior judgment as to when it is time for a vote and whether the vote that has already taken place should be considered valid. I am not the Ombud's man 21:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Weaseloids ban and binning has been rejected by vote, why is he keeping it up and swinging his mod-e-pen0r around?!--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 21:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC) 21:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

???-DιαμοπdDιςc1(talk) 22:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

It was put up to vote in the Coop and was rejected, but Weaseloid refuses to give him back his sysop tools and let him out of the bin and brazenly turns the mobocracy into a modocracy by waving his mod-e-pen0r around ("mod decision" and that kinda bullshit).--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 22:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC) 22:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh my God! Oh my God! Weaseloid has an e-penis! Oh my God! Freakout time everybody! Ahhhh!!!! PB (talk) 02:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Voting on this, or what?

Vandal binning / sysoprevoke of LH and Jagulard to be reversed immediately when mods deem the vote has run.

NO to sysoprevoke/vandalbin

1. Shite "decision" in a fit of pique. Less than 48 hours previously, most folks decided the edit warring over labelling of sources on WIGO:World and Blogs was trivial bullshit they could barely give a fuck about. For Weaseloid, however, it's apparently SRS BSNS. Fuck moderation by tantrum. Robledo (talk) 23:45, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
2. Don't use this "mod decision" bullshit as a fig leaf for throwing a tantrum.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 23:51, 4 October 2016 (UTC) 23:51, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
3. With the caveat that I would really like to have the two underlying issues (can the word "Arab" be used on pages about Israel and/or Palestine and can sources be added to WIGO entries) resolved at some point, lest we get a whole slew of new needless drama. I am not the Ombud's man 23:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
4. As a fairly neutral observer: while I trust Weasel's reasoning and motives, both as a friend and an elected moderator (one whom I voted for, no less), I don't get the impression of a clear-cut case in favor of sysoprevoking and vandal binning based on the above. If the suggestion was something else — a topic ban, a time-limited punishment, etc, I may have voted differently. But as things stand right now — and you may not change the vote while it is underway — I'm going to urge everyone to calm the fuck down. It would appear that not too many individual editors are particularly involved in this coop case, and as such, any arbitration becomes difficult, and the process risks becoming a kangaroo court for either side. Therefore, I might as well weigh in on the side of "innocent until proven guilty". I certainly don't plan on being praised by the defendant nor derided by the accuser for voting like this — both of you, mark my words. I just can't support such final punishment for what is a sufficiently unclear case. And there is nothing wrong with that. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

   However, I will add that today's Pizzameister/Avenger tomfoolery has made me come within about a **** hair of reconsidering my vote. I'm watching you! *feverishly points in random directions* Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

   Really! It certainly made my patience all but vanish. I had thought about abstaining or even voting no. But no. Nerd271 (talk) 23:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

5. Basically the above.-DιαμοπdDιςc1(talk) 23:20, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
6. Per the reasons given above. Ayzmo^Cheers 17:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
7. Something isn't kosher here. We need less use of tools and more use of talk. Hipocrite (talk) 22:07, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
8. Per Reverend Black Percy's cogent arguments. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 04:21, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

YES to sysoprevoke/vandalbin

1. Let's see if we can cut the drama a bit this way, he/they are a fucking pain in the arse lately - David Gerard (talk) 01:02, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

   By collapsing votes, cause you didn't like the result? That's what you did above.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 18:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC) 18:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

   Early votes before discussion has been a standard drama-increasing move, and remains a bad idea - David Gerard (talk) 10:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

   No, vote do not increase any kinda drama, it's just that the votes didn't go in the direction you wanted.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 15:59, 6 October 2016 (UTC) 15:59, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

2. Cut the drama and bullshit, people. We don't need to have an endless pendulum of binned/not binned for problem users, as this will only create more drama. PBfreespace (talk) 02:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

   Thing is, you're next, dummy. Don't you see how close you are to being finished here? You abuse your rights more than Gerard FFS. Take it easy. 107.77.83.124 (talk) 02:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

   And you'll be next, buddy. You abuse your sysop-tools more than anyone else. Do that to someone not that out of favor among the bigwigs and the mob here and you're out. You may think you'll know who's safe to bully, but that never lasts long and everyone slips up. --The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 15:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC) 15:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

   I find it funny that the above people rant and rave about how bad the RW coop lynch mob is and vote no on most punishments, but when it's me they say "you're next buddy, watch your back, because we'll be chewing on it soon". And if so, so what? Coop me, see if i give a shit. The above user is supposed to be fucking permabanned, but we actively choose to let him stay simply because the main user he fought with left! PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 04:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

   I didn't threaten you to Coop you, you fucking retard, I just predicted, that the lynch mob here won't do what you want him to do. The Coop ain't your personal army and (I hope) won't let you get rid of your opponents by accusing them of some or another nonsense.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 16:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC) 16:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

   Saying "you'll be next" is a threat. Don't try and sugarcoat it. You're a sockpuppet of Arisboch and you've lost all credibility at this point, Boris in Germany. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 20:59, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

   I didn't say "you'll be next", I said "you abusing your sysop tools without consequence won't last forever and neither will other users accept you attempting to use the Chicken Coop as a means to get rid of people you don't like on some trumped up charges or another".--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 22:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC) 22:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

   Do you have memory loss, Kugelschreiber? Allow me to quote your earlier post: "And you'll be next, buddy." PBfreespace (talk) 22:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

   I made no threats, since I didn't say anything along the lines of "I'll do x to you".--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 23:04, 6 October 2016 (UTC) 23:04, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

   I can't believe this shyster. Why are you arguing so much over this? PBfreespace (talk) 23:06, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

3. I am quite convinced that LH has been toxic enough to warrant the sysoprevoke, i dont think we should vandal bin, not yet, but i am quite close to being for that aswell. I will try anything at this point to stop the toxic bullshit. Bubba41102^{The place where you can scream at me} 16:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
4. --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
5. 👍 ∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 21:59, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
6. Just permaban him and any alt you can find. If he makes an alt that doesn't immediately get noticed by getting into trouble, he can try again. If not, ban on the slightest offense. Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
7. Nerd271 (talk) 00:25, 8 October 2016 (UTC).

The Reverse Goat

1. Remove sysop and ban for a few days, then return. StickySock (talk) 04:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Side point(s)

For all those who may care, I pledge on my honor (such as it may be) that I and Jagulard are different persons. To my knowledge we do not even reside in the same country, but I have never met them, have no contact with them outside of RW and would not know of any views we share besides those that became apparent in the recent WIGO debate.

On another point, I hereby promise (more for my own sanity than for anything else and certainly not to hand Pbfreespace3 a cheap "victory") to stay the hell away from Israel/Palestine (which does not mean I won't correct a typo here or there on an article about Jesus or something tangentially related to Judaism, the Middle East or the likes, just so we're clear) at the very least for the time being and probably for as long as I - or anybody - can see into the future in these foggy times (literally, it's so foggy right now, I can't even see the next metro stop).

Why does the promise not include a concrete time-frame? Simple. Whichever time-frame I give, will only be greeted by speculation about what happens "after" that time-frame. Why is the promise not forever minus one day? Also simple, neither I nor anybody else can see so far ahead. Who knows whether RW will even still exist in five years. Who knows what the userbase will look like in two years. Maybe there will be an almost successful takeover by Metapedia trolls, maybe there will be a large influx of Netanyahu fanboys. Maybe I convert to Islam this time next year. Giving a promise farther than eyes can see or minds imagine is in my opinion foolish and harmful, so I will - for the sake of honesty and sanity - abstain from it.

On the topic of long texts on talk pages and Coop Cases. I would like to avoid them, but if you have to press all your thoughts into one post every thirty minutes, this becomes difficult. Please accept the use of paragraphs as a stopgap. I will try and let brevity be the soul of wit once I can edit normally.

On the topic of WIGO, I reiterate my point to abide by whichever settlement is found. If the consensus is that sources may be added, I will do so. If the consensus is that sources may not be added, I will not add sources. If the consensus is that sources may be added just not by me, I won't consider that just or fair, but I will abide by it. If the consensus is that sources may be added but also removed by whoever pleases, I will try to find common ground with the other side and hope to avoid edit wars. If the consensus is that I should not edit WIGO for a certain time-frame, I will abide by that. It is, in my considered opinion the absence of any clear rule what has led to the fight over WIGO.

On the topic of changing my signature; I will - if I may - continue to do that, you can simply hover over it to see where it leads, or you can click the link. Should there be some rule binding every user to certain parameters within which a signature should lie, I will unquestionably follow the letter of the law and do my utter best to uphold the spirit of the law such as it can be seen.

If there is anything on which you would like a clear and honest answer or a pledge of mine (lest it be a pledge "forever minus one day") I will try my honest best to give you what you desire if giving is in my power.

I shall be silent for half an hour. I am not the Ombud's man 16:07, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, so instead of trying to reign in his behaviour, Avenger is instead ramping up his sealioning & wikilawyering. See threads here & here in addition to wall of text above & previous threads on this page. It's a waste of everyone's time & energy, and an example of why Avenger belongs in the vandal bin & has been binned repeatedly.

For anyone still doubting that Laurogeita Hamabost is Avengerofthe BoN, despite all this typical Avenger behaviour, take a look at what happened last time the original Avengerofthe BoN account made an edit on 31st July. This was the first edit from that account in over a month, & as a vandal binned user it would have automatically vandal binned whatever IP address this edit was made from. A few hours later Laurogeita Hamabost unbinned and rebinned Avengerofthe BoN because of "testing something", as well as paroling a couple of associated IPs. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:45, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I forgot something. Should the vote for me an Jagulard be handled en bloc or should Jagulard get his/her own vote? Also, thank you Weaseloid for not answering any of my point and being so refreshingly clear in what he thinks is wrong with me. I still don't quite know what "typical Avenger behaviour" means, but maybe someone more intelligent than I am could explain it to me. I am not the Ombud's man 20:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

"Typical Avenger behavior" means you are a sockpuppet of Avenger. Make another sarcastic comment like that and I'll permaban you. PB (talk) 21:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Making sarcastic to you is not a bannable offense, you wankstain.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 22:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC) 22:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure the mob would support you in that without question. I am not the Ombud's man 21:26, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

WHY THE FUCK IS PB STILL ALLOWED TO DO ANYTHING? Fuck's sake, aside from the completely out-of-line permaban (that he still has to answer to answer for), NOW he's threatening the same user AGAIN with the exact same thing. I told you he wouldn't stop. Coops his ass, strip him of his powers, ban him, I don't care, but this is completely egregious. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 21:32, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

No, what's really egregious is a user who has been punished by the community returning under a different account to avoid punishment. That's what AvengeroftheBoN is doing as we speak. Every minute his accounts are not vandal-binned is a minute where community guidelines mean nothing. If you don't realize this, NewFrenchHotness, then I can't help you. Just for the record, do you believe AvengeroftheBoN has created sockpuppet accounts to avoid his vandalbin? PBfreespace (talk) 21:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe anything concerning Avenger, PB3, because I couldn't give less of a fuck. What I do know, however, is that you are a humorless paranoid pothead (I suspect the two to be linked) who blatantly abuses his powers, liberally engages in verbal abuse of other users if he thinks he can get away with it, and then tries to game the system into legitimizing the blatant oversteps of his authority. And, yes, if you are wondering, I do have a chip on my shoulder concerning your person, but that's what you get for calling me a "self-hating racist". NewFrenchHotness (talk) 21:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

• First off, I'm not a pothead. Never smoked weed in my life. So personal attack 1: busted.
• How am I humorless? Please prove this. I want a 5-paragraph term paper written and posted here by tomorrow, or else I'll permaban you.
• Paranoid? It's not being paranoid if there really are people out to get you. But no, I've never been successfully copied, so I have little to be paranoid about, especially compared to Avenger, who had to constantly worry about his socks being binned so he can make a new one under an unassuming name and hope people don't connect it to him.
• I don't even understand what your last paragraph is about. Self-hating racist? What the hell are you going on about? I don't ever remember us talking about race at all. Thanks for strawmanning me, using ad hominem, poisoning the well, and using argument against authority, all in a few sentences. And don't forget about that essay, or I'll permaban you. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 21:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

You called me a self-hating racist when I pointed out that Saint Bernie was a white-ass guy working in one of the whitest-ass states in America, in comparison to Martin O' Malley being mayor of Baltimore and governor of Maryland, when it came to the "worthiness" of the both of them to be the Democratic nominee. You also called FCP a dumbass behind his back on the same occasion, remember? You also admitted to smoking pot about two months back.

As for the rest... I'm laughing. If you think you can prove you have a sense of humor by threatening permabans willy-nilly, then you are very, very wrong. But go ahead, try and ban me. I just hope you get your ass obliterated the instant you even reach for that button. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 22:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

It's gigantically ironic that you claim I don't have a sense of humor when I made a joke that I'm sure many other users here laughed at. Also, saying you smoked weed doesn't mean you've actually done it. And now that you've mentioned the race thing, I stand by my comments. You are indeed racist. Not that that matters. PBfreespace (talk) 22:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Put your special needs away, son. It's embarrassing watching you wave them around like this in public. Robledo (talk) 00:07, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Frankly, you're humorless because you can't even recognize when you're being joshed with in a joking manner. You have shown no evidence of being able to laugh at yourself. At all. Everything is this dead serious crap.

I don't think you smoke pot; you sound too much like a straight-edge hipster who is a constant downer. I can see someone saying something like "I like Scooby-Doo." and you'd go off on them about how Scooby-Doo isn't there to be liked, it's an example of the patriarchical capitalistic society attempting to enforce its values and how this would be taken care of if people read more of the progressive dialectics of Chomsky.

When I picture you, I picture you as an underfed shaved-head white guy with those round steel-rim glinty glasses. You might or might not have a beard, but if you do it will be "ironic". You never laugh that anyone's noticed; smiling is right the fuck out. People describe you as "intense" in your hearing and "asshole" out of it. You're always reading, but it's always Marxist dialectic, progressive political material, the classic Russian authors, or heavy German angst. You might, in a moment of lightness, read some existential postmodernist absurdism.

Oh, and you judge. You judge the hell out of people around you for not being as enlightened as you are.

You probably don't look a thing like I imagine, but that sure as shit how you come off online.

But there's one thing I know for sure about you. You're definitely a moral coward and someone who would rather burn it all down if they can't get everything they want. Your NeverHill approach proved that. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:55, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Spine

You know it's a sock of a perma-banned user. I know it's a sock of a perma-banned user. We all know it's a sock of a perma-banned user. We also know the user in question continues to get into trouble and has not changed. So, why doesn't someone have a spine and just ban them? Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I tried, but Weaseloid undid it. You want to do it? PBfreespace (talk) 22:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I would, but I'm not a mod/admin, unless I have the tools already as sysop for a perma (not sure about that, never use them). I'd probably get banned though, how ironic. Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

You can absolutely permaban someone as a sysop. Try it. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 22:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Admins/Mods, will I get banned/undone if I perma an obvious sock of a perma-banned user? Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:56, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Avenger isn't a permabanned user; he's a vandal binned user & the vandal bin is where he belongs. Blocking him is pointless as he will just create more sockpuppets anyway, & then there'll be more edit warring & wikilawyering & more of these tedious coops before we go through the loop all over again. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:58, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Alright, can I vandal bin him then? Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:59, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Don't be so goddamn impatient, the Coop case about that didn't end yet. To sanction people you need a Coop case.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 23:06, 6 October 2016 (UTC) 23:06, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Impatient? This user is always in the coop and was already vandal binned before. This has been going on for a long time. Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:09, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Hahah, I popped back to see how things are travelling here, good to see nothing has changed. Pbfreespace swinging his dick around, bickering in the coop over inconsequential shit while the wiki hemorrhages editors etc... But my absolute favourite has to be those advocating for a permanent ban, it may not have worked the first five times but sixth is the charm! Don't ever change RW. ^{— Unsigned, by: 139.130.16.222 / talk / contribs}

* dons Mod Hat * 

Just blocked Kugelschreiber for nine hours for frothing unhelpfulness in a coop case. (And being permabanned Arisboch.) Stop being utter fucking shitheads y'all - David Gerard (talk) 13:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

* dons Mod Hat * 

And Avenger for trolling his shit on the Saloon Bar after warning. Let's see if things are strangely calmer - David Gerard (talk) 13:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Time frame

When is this coop going to be closed, and what will the result be? Will a simple majority be sufficient either way? What about a tie in votes? What about a three way split? Will people who voted for something else be asked which option they prefer? Is there a requirement for some form of supermajority to impose punishment? Will the vote be valid for both me and Jagulard or will there be separate votes? I am not the Ombud's man 19:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Stop. Oh my god stop. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 20:45, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

"How long will the coop case last? What is the meaning of life? Who am I? Why am I here? Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?" - Aveng Pizzamei Laurogei ^{— Unsigned, by: Pbfreespace3 / talk / contribs}

Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:06, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Likewise. Nerd271 (talk) 00:25, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

That's four mods pissed off at the sight of you, but do feel free to try for more - David Gerard (talk) 21:08, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight!-DιαμοπdDιςc1(talk) 22:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Helpful as always, Diamond... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Too untoward? If so, my bad.-DιαμοπdDιςc1(talk) 02:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

The drama here generally needs no egging on to still go on for way too long. On a side note, I had to Google that word. Wow, Diamond, great moves! Keep it up, proud of you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:05, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

-DιαμοπdDιςc1(talk) 02:24, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

While I generally agree with - and like - DiamondDisc1, I think the "fight" template is overused and not all that helpful. I would, however, like to resume working on the "world as a RW talk page" as it is both fun reading and writing it. I am not the Ombud's man 12:42, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Given that inspired the present problems, how about you never edit that page or its talk ever again - David Gerard (talk) 14:47, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure we are talking about the same thing. I was talking about this page if there ever was a problem concerning my activity there I am unaware of it. If you make my unbinning conditional on something (e.g. me staying away from a certain page), say it and I will certainly consider it and likely accept it. I am not the Ombud's man 15:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I do appreciate LH's help on that page. I don't see how that inspired the current problem, other than a small disagreement on the Syria section between PB3 and LH.-DιαμοπdDιςc1(talk) 17:51, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Please stop putting links in headers

It stops them from working as internal anchors. ħuman 01:12, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Duly noted. Thanks, old timer. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:13, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I move to have the above comment by ZackMartin collapsed. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Enough of this garbage

All three of AvengerOfLauroJag, Kugelschreiber and Pbfreespace3 have reached the singular goal of being mod blocked for unacceptable shitheadry in the course of a coop in which they accuse each other of unacceptable shitheadry, one of several such coops in the past year.

It is possible that these editors are a fucking toxic liability who have made this wiki a more miserable place to interact in the past year than any other three editors.

As such, can we just ban the clearly incurable fuckheads? - David Gerard (talk) 23:01, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Fine by me. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:04, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Then I'll be the only one editing Fun:The world as a RW talk page!:(-DιαμοπdDιςc1(talk) 23:21, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Please briefly say why I should be blocked from the site. PBfreespace (talk) 02:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Hinting that you were prepared to drop dox on people you disagree with works, for starters. Hipocrite (talk) 11:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Works. Hipocrite (talk) 10:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea -- if only we could stop Avenger/Lauro/Pizza and Kugel/Aris from creating a gazillion new sockpuppets...--JorisEnter (talk) 11:01, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Good enough, put to vote? CorruptUser (talk) 13:16, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I vote yes twenty thousand times. Fuck this shit and three three rectums producing it. Bicycle^wheel 14:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

To all the people here watching: I didn't give the name or address of the user is question, and I only listed a region after the other user in effect doxxed me by describing my exact physical appearance and harrassing me. There was absolutely no reason for him to bring up me appearance or offline habits on this wiki. While I admit that I shouldn't have done what I did, we still need to stop the environment that causes these kinds of personal exchanges from happening in the first place. If you're going to put me up to a vote, fine, but put Castaigne up there too because he harassed me and revealed personal information about me. Finally, I'd like to note that my personal information (which I don't know how he got) is still up there for anyone to read, while his was instantly removed. This should be fixed. PBfreespace (talk) 18:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Are you just being sarcastic right now, or was the stereotypical description Castagine imagined up actually on point?! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I can't possibly see how he is exactly how I imagined him without ever have even looked him up. If he actually is, that's too funny. More probably he's lying. --Castaigne2 (talk) 14:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

So you are saying that I proclaimed a general shirt and it was somehow cut to fit you, really?

Also, I give you absolute permission to post any identifying (doxing, whatever) detail about me you see fit. I have nothing to hide. (Although if you got it from Kiwi, you should really, really do some fact-checking. :D) --Castaigne2 (talk) 14:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Nice try, Castaigne. You're trying to get me to post more personal details about you so I can be banned. You should feel happy I won't oblige. PBfreespace (talk) 01:25, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

The proposal to ban all 3 of us is firstly biased, as it forces everyone into thinking we're all part of some guilty group that might need removing. Secondly, it creates even more confusion. Let me also note that if the "no" option wins here, that does not mean that now none of us can be touched. PBfreespace (talk) 23:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

You're a collective singularity of fuckwittery, individually and as a permanent floating flamewar. Individually, you have a jawdropping inability not to keep a stupid shitfight going. Fucking enough - David Gerard (talk) 23:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I doubt that there is anything in the community standards excluding the vote of anybody on their own banning. And on a further point, Jagulard is very clearly a different person than I am. But if you ban him as a false positive, you will be rid of him. He has said as much. And he seems to be on his way out here already. You could work on the assumption that we are separate people and ban him later if he does something that convinces you otherwise, but I doubt that those inclined towards banning will take any of my advice on this. I am not the Ombud's man 16:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

This is an embarrassment, where in the history of the wiki have the accused parties not been allowed to vote? What are you going to do even if you succeed; it's not like it's hard to create a new account. 139.130.16.222 (talk) 00:25, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree, demand I and the accused be allowed to vote. This is a blatant attempt by David Gerard to tilt the vote to how he wants it by depriving the accused of franchise. This must stop now. PB (talk) 01:24, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes to ban on AvengerOfLauroJag, Kugelschreiber and Pbfreespace3

1. David Gerard (talk) 23:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
2. Bubba41102^{Is reaching a breaking point} 01:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
3. Bicycle^wheel 10:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
4. Yes please.--JorisEnter (talk) 12:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
5. --Castaigne2 (talk) 14:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
6. Relevant. Plutoniumboss (talk) 17:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
7. Ë. (talk) 21:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
8. and let god sort them out. Hipocrite (talk) 05:33, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

No to ban on AvengerOfLauroJag, Kugelschreiber and Pbfreespace3

1. I vote no. PBfreespace (talk) 00:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

   You're not qualified to vote, "Anyone except the three in question please" Lord Aeonian (talk) 03:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

   The users in question may not be prevented from voting. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

2. Go ban yourself--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 16:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC) 16:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
3. No. Lord Aeonian (talk) 03:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
4. No. B) talk 13:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
5. Is it the end of the world if they get banned, probably not but it also won't do anything. Just take away there mops already and if some more accounts that act like them come forth, don't mop them.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:57, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
6. No. The Present King of France (talk) 23:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
7. I vote no I am not the Ombud's man 23:34, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
8. No. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 20:54, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
9. No, because that won't do anything.-DιαμοπdDιςc1(talk) 23:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

goat etc blah

I would like my no vote to be counted. I would even vote no if only the banning of Pbfreespace3 were to be discussed here. Enough of this. I am not the Ombud's man 17:27, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Mods say your vote isn't counted. SORRY BRO. Mods have final say. --Castaigne2 (talk) 17:31, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

That is the second time in this Coop case alone of David manipulating a vote.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 20:36, 10 October 2016 (UTC) 20:36, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

And the fact that the other mods don't object?

I just can't get a lot of sympathy for you. If FCP, 142․124․55․236‏‎, DG, Human, Wombat, and Weaseloid just decided to go ahead and shut down the wiki and ban everyone from them, that would be that. They are the mods. That's all she wrote. That's how it works. If they decided -I- don't have a voice in the vote, that's all she wrote. And that would be fine. --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

That's probably unlikely to be how it would work and be called working. I suspect almost everyone is sick of this bullshit, though - David Gerard (talk) 21:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, no, the board would probably have to approve such an extreme action, I'm guessing, since it would directly interfere with the foundation's mission, though, I suppose that group represents a voting majority of the board's membership too. The moderators do not own the site, and instead are simply responsible for policing community behavior to keep an environment that promotes healthy editing. To that end, dealing with coop bullshit is specifically their purview. They aren't dictators, and I think they don't really want to be either.

(EC) sick of this bullshit is pretty much an apt description. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 21:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

to da boat a yews.--JorisEnter (talk) 21:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Rule of thumb is: ignore anything Castaigne says about "how it works". Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:27, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Three Billy Goats Gruff

If we do ban, will we need to have more coop votes when they make new accounts? Or should we just use the duck test and call it a day? CorruptUser (talk) 05:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Duck test sounds fine. --Castaigne2 (talk) 14:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

"It's definitely a platypus and you're clearly just a fascist" - RedLinkedSleeperAccountWithThreeEdits,^{— Unsigned, by: David Gerard / talk / contribs} 16:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I'll admit to having been pretty platypus friendly, in that in previous cases, no one was citing any specific issues that made the wiki not go. And that drives me batty, because I'd like to have something non-personal to go "yep, that's gotta go". Now, it's "I was sysoprevoked for being obnoxious, please give me back my moooops" ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 21:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

It certainly is odd how attached everyone is to their mops. You don't need a mop to edit so it is hard for me to agree that every demopping requires a coop vote.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I would not care much about my mop if it were not for the de facto means of communication via short blocks and the fact that I have been blocked for non-joke amounts over what can only be called personal vendettas. And unfortunately there is not always a sane calm and reasoned voice at hand to do the unblocking before a lot of time has elapsed. I am not the Ombud's man 09:11, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Result?

It's been 48 hours. 6 votes ban, 3 votes no ban. I'm sure everyone has seen the vote, but most people here are refusing to vote. So... close the vote, ban the 3 dramamongers? CorruptUser (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

It is much too soon to close this vote. The last vote was up for 7 days and was added onto until the last day. Slamming this vote shut now would constitute a gross miscarriage of justice in my opinion. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:11, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agree. Due to the severity of the vote's consequences, it should last 14 days, the maximum allowed by the Community Standards. This doesn't stop the older case from being archived; in fact I support archiving the older prove of the case to clean it up. It also seems that many people are boycotting the vote, believing it to be am unjust vote, as the accused have not been allowed to vote unlike every other coop case in RationalWiki history. PBfreespace (talk) 21:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

This coop case has been running ten days. The previous Laurogeita Hamabost case was only two or three days prior to that. This is now the fifth voting section in the current coop. Is it any wonder most users have better things to do?

As I've said repeatedly, this is a waste of everybody's time. Users who create obvious sock accounts, carry on the same vexatious behaviour, & then make us debate & vote on it over & over are gaming the system. We can't keep doing this; we need to just deal with them & get on with our lives. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

If the votes of myself, Kugelschreiber and Pbfreespace3 were counted it would be a draw. If Jagulard could be bothered to vote (he seems to have given up on RW already) it would be a victory for no ban. Nice work, Gerard. I am not the Ombud's man 21:39, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Preventing the accused from voting

It is my understanding that it is a perversion of justice to prevent the accused from voting (sockpuppets, however, may not vote). The Community Standards are clear on that matter. If the mob considers Jagulard to be a sock of LH (which I personally don't), the argument could be made that only one of them may vote. If there exists a rule that previously banned users cannot vote, the argument could be made that Kugel and LH may note vote. But even if these arguments are actually made (with support), PB must be allowed to vote, and possibly Jagulard as well (despite his truly shitty attitude).

I want this bullshit to end just as much as the next man, and as an obvious result of this, the "Yes" voters have my fullest sympathies, and I am myself seriously torn over how to cast my vote on this, if at all. However, what cannot be permissible is preventing the accused from voting. The vote will also require a two-thirds majority to pass, as clearly specified by the Community Standards. If we're doing this — and we are — it will be by the book, so help me Goat. If this call for what I consider basic adherence to the Community Standards is overruled or reverted without discussion, let it atleast be known and remembered that I did not stand idly by as your hands were being tied behind your backs, even guilty as you may be.

Now, don't get me wrong. I could possibly be sold on the idea of myself voting to have you people kicked off the site — I can't handwave it as impossible. I trust and respect my colleagues who vote "Yes". But what I cannot ever be sold on is the idea that bypassing basic due process and the Community Standards, for reasons of convenience, somehow strengthens the validity of the case or indeed the vote itself.

I am offically undecided on the vote (as of yet), and I remain fully receptive to arguments from either side regarding if my above interpretation of the rules is correct or in error, and I do not claim authority or special wisdom about how the rules are to be read and applied. I am not a moderator, either. But you will all agree that this is an elephant in the room which cannot go unadressed. And the obvious way I see of adressing it is: having the vote actually adhere to the most basic precepts of our Community Standards, ensuring that it will be a valid vote in the eyes of the community, one with results that can last — whatever its outcome may be. Thank you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

idiot BS moved from the Bar

It's a novel concept that I support in theory, but I'd like a little more detail. So all this thing does it stop people with this user right from editing articles outside of mainspace? I would like it to do more than that, because I feel like this isn't the main issue. Here's what I propose instead. Pbfreespace3's Proposal:

"Vandal bin" becomes a user right. It becomes time-adjustable, just like blocks are right now. The time-adjustable vandal bin is superior because it allows individual users to be dealt with based on severity of offense rather than an arbitrary inflexible limit. Users can be limited to 1 edit per 30 minutes, or 1 edit per 24 hours (or any time that may be required). Whiny users like Laurogeita can, by moderator fiat or by mob majority, be restricted to a larger time limit, while pettier vandals get a smaller time limit if necessary. What do you think about this proposal? PBfreespace (talk) 23:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Requires fancy coding stuff. A vastly more workable solution is none of you editing anywhere - David Gerard (talk) 23:43, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

"It requires work that I don't want to do, so why don't all of the bad users just stop editing instead?" Gee, great solution. I see how this is actually going to make the vandal bin system more useful. PB (talk) 02:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

How about you write the code, then? Remember to make it so good that MW upgrades don't require rewriting it. I can't believe you just attacked a volunteer for not wanting to spend 20 hours implementing your "idea". ħuman 22:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

It was so easy that FCP already did it. PB (talk) 22:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

My Thoughts, Opinion, Analysis, and Vote

Hello, I would just like to say that as a Rationalwiki Editor, I support the well-deserved bans for the editors who disagree with me politically. However, I do not support the outrageous and unjustified bans of those who agree with me. I was going to type out a very long polemic, motivated by what I just said, but focusing entirely on other issues, but I decided this would be more pragmatic. I look forward to the day when all other editors adopt this approach, as it will save enormous amounts of time and effort on coop cases. Thank you for your time. Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:25, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

B) talk 15:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Lousy post with poor consideration for how much tedious drama all this shit has dragged out. I always like to err on the side of not banning people I disagree with, but I'm so tired of this stuff. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 16:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Kill the coop.

This discussion was moved here from RationalWiki:Saloon bar.

In case you were unaware, there is a case being "argued" at the chicken coop. Some facts:

• This coop case started 02 October. It is 12 October. It has been 1/3 month since this began.
• At time of writing, precisely 312 edits and 2 protections have died here. This single pile of crap represents fully 8.15% (about 1 in 12) of October's total 3826 edits.
• The raw text of this coop now measures 95860 characters: This coop case, if it were an article, would be the 24th longest thing RationalWikians have ever written.
• Assuming 6 characters per word, the coop measures in at 15977 words. That is, for scale, fully 1/50 of a the KJV Bible.
• That does not include the 3 users who've messaged me on Reddit, asking what the fuck is up.
• That does not include the moderator email chains that had to happen because of this shit.
• That does not include the constant spillover to talkpages, user talk pages, the bar.
• That does not include the culture of combat this coop has created.

---

This is not justice. This is not mob justice. This is not "checking moderator power". This is not HCM resolution.

This is a waste of time. This is wikilawyering horseshit. This is a dramafest.

The coop continually fails at its stated purpose: "avoidance, containment and resolution of cases of Headless Chicken Mode (HCM)". It no longer works, if it ever has. Thus:

RationalWiki needs another system of conflict resolution.

---

This has been brought up before. See:

• RationalWiki:Saloon_bar/Archive258#Should_we_reform_coop_procedures.3F (same subject, several proposals)
• RationalWiki_talk:Chicken_coop/Archive4#How_to_fix_the_coop (same subject, several proposals)
• RationalWiki_talk:Chicken_coop/Archive3#I_made_a_thing (my shitty proposal that nobody liked)
• RationalWiki:Saloon_bar/Archive258#Solving_edit_wars (related subject)

---

I say this as just another user. Disregard it and/or ridicule it as you please. However, in my opinion, it is beyond time that RationalWiki choose another system. We are hemorrhaging users, and the culture of cooping cannot be helping. Yet we are an increasingly public website, with millions of monthly unique viewers. We must learn how to act professionally, or risk losing yet more credibility -- and potential editors, repelled by the chaos.

Feel free to discuss this post below; please create new subheaders (===) for any proposals. Please don't vote on anything until at least one idea is sufficiently developed. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 03:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I believe you will find most here agree. If it were up me, users should receive blanket suspensions or bans for, a) edit warring, b) personal attacks (eg. Accusations of sock puppetry and shilling), and c) vandalism. No appeals. All of this hippie dippy horseshit (pardon) has no weight in anonymous forum. (And I attended a school where we sat around drum circles and "council" meetings to resolve disputes.) Plutoniumboss (talk) 03:26, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I have been thinking about proposing this for some time now but didn't really care enough. I am glad a mod is actually taking a good look at this.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:34, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

"hemorrhaging users" I for one left some years ago and am only now posting as a BoN because recent changes was flooded with nothing but coop cases and related drama. 109.175.208.0 (talk) 04:52, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, the coop (by which we all mean the "dispute resolution process") can't be helping, but it's not the reason the site is losing users. The same process was in place during this wiki's meteoric rise. 139.130.16.222 (talk) 05:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Remember that the drama is cross-wiki and is then put there. (Also that the last year of the coop has been literally the same few shitheads repeatedly. There's a vote on about whether or not to ban the chuckefucks in question.) It's actually more contained there. The complaint is that the overflow is overflowing, which is something structure won't help with I think. Also, beware of politician's syllogism - David Gerard (talk) 07:57, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Another respectable voice heard, cheers! Also, thanks for prompting me to refresh my memory regarding that syllogism. SmartFeller (talk) 16:26, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

(EC) I'm moving this thread to the coop page itself because it pulls on themes already under discussion here, & because coop crap shouldn't spill over into the Saloon Bar where users may be trying to ignore it.

As I've stated throughout this coop case, it's a waste of everyone's time. We know who Laurogeita Hamabost is, he's pulling the same stunts as his previous accounts did, & as his next accounts will no doubt do after the current accounts are binned or blocked. We don't need to treat him as a new case every time he shows up.

A huge part of the problem is a shift in recent years where far too many of you are willing to treat RationalWiki:Community Standards as an inflexible set of rules (as evinced in many of the comments above), something they explicitly state in the opening line they are not. There are common sense exceptions to everything in the CS, & this was always intended to be the case. This rulebook culture is wherein you're really being trolled by time-wasting wikilawyers like Avenger & Arisboch. Check their comments throughout this case, insisting that we have to debate them, explain a bunch of things to them, vote on them, that they have to vote too, etc. etc. Check all of Avenger's comments where he says & over that he'll pursue whatever fuckwittery he chooses until we write a specific policy relating to that specific piece of fuckwittery.

Again: it's a waste of everyone's time, it didn't need to happen & it doesn't need to keep happening again. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:12, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I fully agree. RationalWiki needs a better method of conflict resolution. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 11:15, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Something has to be done about the coop. Maybe it is time that we take some hints from how TOW resolves conflict? (How does TOW resolve conflict?) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

How could you possibly know whether the coop is the real problem when you have no meaningful guidance on conduct and no editorial and editing guidelines to speak of. People have been saying this for many years. You can't enforce the current community standards strictly because they were written as guidelines for people with good judgement. RW never even had these all out spectacles over so called disruptive editors until the very editors with good judgement who wrote the community standards for themselves became disaffected, leaving a vacuum to be filled by the likes of your current crop of petty tyrants and blowhards vs. trolls and tendentious wiki lawyers. It also bears saying that the WP approach of removing and ignoring disruptive comments (not just things you don't want to hear) works a lot better than highly reactive and counterproductive page locks, oversighting, bans, binning, rights removal, and swearing. It should go without saying that screeds like Reverend Black Percy's are genuinely off putting to all but your most emotionally involved busybodies. Others are more interested in even toned and fair dispute resolution. As long as you have no rules and the coop can become a kangaroo court as quickly as it takes for someone to put up an unfair vote and go canvas reactionaries who also love drama, you're bound to continue alienating the kind of users who are actually capable of writing a skeptical wiki. Ë. (talk) 14:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Fuck off Conscience.--JorisEnter (talk) 14:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Conscience isn't wrong, IMO. The co-op has no rules which allows users to screw with their own coops like we say with Castaigne2's coop. The coop is unable to desysop assholes.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

@E.Wig: Mefeels you ignore the chaos of 2011. Or were those substandard editors, too? I yearn for these mythical days of golden editors -- do tell us when they were. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 04:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Do you two need me to find an adult to change your diapers for you?

Let me know if you have a substantive response regarding editorial and conduct policies. Ë. (talk) 14:07, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

My apologies, I didn't know that "bring back the glorious ubermensch of old" needed a substantive response. </pith>

I disagree with the idea that, if RW could just codify some rules, all its problems will disappear. Guidelines themselves aren't the solution; methods to enforce those guidelines are. (And I agree with Weaseloid that users treating the guidelines as rules has led to much of the drama here.) The problem with the coop is (1) that RW has a culture in which every editor is, or should be, empowered, and that no editors should be able to prevent another non-troll editor from doing just about anything [I think this is a good thing, but] (2) and the Coop has no mechanisms to force people down from their empowered high horses -- which is, IMO, why there is an overabundance of wikilawyering, talk of natural user rights, etc. Hence why I proposed my shitty proposal (see above) -- it formalized the process and forced everything into the language of "crime, punishment". (Or, at least, that was the idea.) This is the same reason that I would not mind a moderator court -- the mods are, as much as you may wish to malign them, pretty sane and much less swayable by the whining. (If anything, our current mods react negatively to whining.)

Essentially: I agree that RW has many shitheads, and does not have a process to deal with it. That's why I wrote this. I don't think the solution is rules; it's a different arbitration method. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 15:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

You're still trying to tweak the arbitration method, when quite a lot of the practical problem is that you keep enabling the chucklefucks, because you treat the community guidelines as a suicide pact - David Gerard (talk) 09:07, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Somehow this coop has managed to sustain itself without my intervention whatsoever. How strange. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 15:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: fuck it, let the mods clean up at will

I'm now behind the pseudo-fascist answer of "Let Weaseloid and other moderators deal with this particular issue as they deem necessary". ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 14:44, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't fight that. What I won't support is doing precisely that under the guise of a regular, old-fashioned coop vote. As long as the moderators are fine with separating these actions they take upon themselves from any vote sanctioned community process, so be it. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Respect to the mustelid for persevering as a voice of sense amidst this extended spate of A&A's wankery. That said, it was another mod who mopped Arisboch's currently active (overactive, if you ask me) sock, thus enabling a big part of these recent gyrations. Fuzzy, you can sleep in that part of the bed you made; I've been enjoying more pleasant accommodations elsewhere.

I wouldn't want to open a door to mod wheel wars; sadly, solutions to this abysmally tedious kerfuffle have I none to offer SmartFeller (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Alright, down with mobacracy! Rise of Modism! CorruptUser (talk) 16:29, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

On that note, please donate to the rationalwiki jackboot fund. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 16:33, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd prefer Paravant's vein of dictatorship to what we're doing right here, which isn't producing any results and only sapping the energy of otherwise productive editors. PBfreespace (talk) 16:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

At this point, sure. Though I'm in favor of 1) de-mopping rather than a ban(daid that will fall off in a month), and strongly in favor of 2) the mods making the decision individually for each user. B) talk 03:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Reverend Black Percy (talk) 06:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

So you all have concluded that absolutism is more efficient than populism and demagoguery? Lord Aeonian (talk) 01:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Pretty much just this one issue. It comes back to the community repeatedly and solves nothing, short circuiting it would be good for everyone involved. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 02:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Kinda like issues in real life. Lord Aeonian (talk) 03:31, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Restart RationalWiki:All things in moderation

If the mods are going to be dictators, we should at least be transparent dictators. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 04:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

By "restart", do you mean: return to those principles? Or; change those principles? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 06:43, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Principles? Oh no, I was just going by the lede summary:

This page is for Rationalwiki's moderators to discuss any issues that need discussion, or are brought to their attention. Please use the associated talk page if you wish to comment on what happens here, or to bring something to the moderators' attention.

αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 15:06, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Closing the case

* dons Mod Hat * 

In a few hours from now, this tedious farce of a coop case will have been running two weeks, which is about two weeks too long. Time to clear up this mess.

I am sysop-revoking & vandal-binning Laurogeita Hamabost, Jagulard, Kugelschreiber & Pbfreespace3. I have no objection to them also being blocked as David G suggests. Either way, the next time one of them causes trouble (under the same name or another), we'll just deal with them as appropriate, without all this red tape. They've been cooped repeatedly & been given many warnings in the past.

If there are any strong arguments or objections which haven't already been aired on this page, post them below. Otherwise this gets archived a.s.a.p. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

And, as another mod, here's to that - David Gerard (talk) 23:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Desysop User:Reverend Black Percy

In light of repeated, and often baseless, revision by this particular mod, I am faced with no choice but to open a coop case against Reverend Black Percy. As I understand it, we both joined RW in roughly the same time span. His focus appears to be philosophy and atheism. But whenever he gets anywhere near the articles on politics (a subject he's admitted he knows nothing about), you can feel the bad vibes starting.
In the beginning, we butted heads because he was protecting editors with poor habits: bad grammar, linking to partisan hack youtube channels, or plain incompetence (in the case of Proxima). My own feeling is that Reverend Percy Black is unable to tell the difference between constructive criticism and bullying. To that end, he will not allow anyone to modify/delete the work of other editors. He has even refused to allow me to delete or modify my own edits. In the aftermath of that silly coop case brought against me, I left him to his own devices. But he still insists on reverting my edits on articles that he himself has not touched. Before long he was blocking me from removing my own edits in the article space, presumably out of spite.
His reversions are becoming increasingly frequent and spiteful. I ask that something be done about this (if only a short suspension of his sysop duties). Plutoniumboss (talk) 23:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

"Reverend Percy Black^[sic] is unable to tell the difference between constructive criticism and bullying." Oh the irony.--JorisEnter (talk) 23:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Preferably someone who isn't washing RBP's balls on a daily basis. Plutoniumboss (talk) 23:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

As a recently returned user I'm not familiar with the current political climate on RW and have probably not witnessed the incidents of which you speak. For my benefit and the benefit of others unfamiliar with the issue could you please provide links to the incidents which you believe to be cause for desysoping RBP? SolPyre (talk) 00:28, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

"linking to partisan hack youtube channels" could you point out examples and explain why you believe them to be "partisan hacks"..--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

This edit, I felt, was egregious. RBP reverted it, saying it "seems well sourced", which was a) untrue, and b) completely irrelevant.

A week ago I poked my head into this article and attempted to trim it down. Proxima Centauri edits it regularly; it is full of redundancies and natter. Once again, RBP reverted the edit, then restored around 10% of what I added, i.e. my attempt to summarize what Proxima was saying. By restoring the deleted material, he made this edit redundant, but he wouldn't let me restore the page to its original condition. Plutoniumboss (talk) 01:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Not another coop case!-DιαμοπdDιςc1(talk) 04:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Please, nobody else comment further until RBP does. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 04:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it's proven harder to reply than I thought while busy choking on a dick. And besides, I thought I already had commented? But seriously; I strongly advocate a preliminary discussion that is unhindered by me. Plutoniumboss has taken it upon him/herself to blow the trumpet and summon the full attention of the community and the mob, and — considering the paper-thin case laid out so far — it appears apt to allow for a window wherein members of the community may ask follow-up questions (like above), questions to which Plutioniumboss will to reply with contexutal elaborations and the provision of evidence for his various, specific claims. Naturally, this process will not be impeded by me. I didn't start this coop and summon you all, Plutoniumboss did, so it's incorrect to treat me as a "participant" of this coop case (just yet). This assembly is in the hands of Plutoniumboss (for the time being, if nothing else), and s/he appears to still be clearing his/her throat on the nature of the initial charges. So please, direct your questions to Plutoniumboss, and honor his/her complaint by closely scrutinizing the accusations and the evidence given for them. Thank you, and Goat bless. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

(EC) So what have we got? Some edits (not even an edit war) to the Bill Clinton article nearly three months ago & a minor edit war on the Donald Trump article 10 days ago which (AFAICT) doesn't even seem to have escalated to a talk page discussion, something which should surely be the first recourse for dispute resolution rather than a Chicken Coop case. If there is any wrongdoing here (which I don't see) it has nothing to do with sysop abilities & wouldn't be fixed by desysoping. Unless anything like a proper case is brought forward, I suggest archiving this coop a.s.a.p. & if there's an ongoing dispute about article content it can be taken up on the relevant article talk page instead. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel}

Well, that's what we've allegedly got on me. The defense still rests, mind you, and any possible guilt that lies with Plutoniumboss has yet to be brought forward. Aside from the obvious fact that starting up frivolous and poorly reasoned coop cases on a whim is a practice that is severely frowned upon — we've all read The Boy Who Cried Wolf. Though, speaking of editing practices... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

a) Taking him to the talk page has proven to be a fruitless exercise. He rarely responds, and wherever he goes, his rent boy shows up. b) I'm picking through this pile of five-dollar words. And I still fail to see a justification for the Clinton edit. You knew that source was erroneous, and Laurogeita was injecting her slant into the election articles, and yet you kept it anyway. Just like how you restored that painfully unfunny PMS joke into the Hillary article. Or how about when User:Nerd mentioned Goldman Sachs three times in the introduction alone, and you prevented me from trimming it down? Plutoniumboss (talk) 14:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Plutoniumboss's complaint: the evidence

Per the text at the top: "When presenting a case here, be sure to include who you are accusing, what exactly you are accusing them of, some hard evidence, and a brief explanation." There's not a lot of evidence as yet. This section is for Plutoniumboss to present the most convincing evidence they have of a substantive editing problem on Reverend Black Percy's part. Please discuss in the next section. - David Gerard (talk) 14:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussion of Plutoniumboss's complaint

• From what I can see the origin of Pluto's strong sentiments is that he/she put a lot of effort into some edits and RBP sort of brushed them aside. The situation escalated to some name calling from Plutonium and RBP might or might not have then acted out of vindictiveness. I haven't seen anything indicating that RBP abused his sysop powers. Looks like Plutonium lost a lot of work to an EC from one of RBP's edits which precipitated Plutonium starting this coop. Does that description of events seem accurate to other people? SolPyre (talk) 16:30, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

  I would advise you to see if Plutoniumboss actually provides the specific evidence you've asked for above (alongside several others) before agreeing to subscribe to any type of "narrative" on what might've led to Plutoniumboss to decide to rally the coop. And even so, it won't be enough to just look at the select "evidence" s/he provides, if any. Don't forget that the mere existence of a coop case does not imply that said coop case was started for any good (or even valid) reasons in the first place. I know it's not me you're asking, but just as food for thought — I'd suggest that you not accept the accusations themselves as evidence, nor mistake my (relative) silence on the issue (for now) with any type of admission of guilt on my part — or, frankly, comprehension of exactly what it is I'm being accused of. Thanks in advance. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

  I'm still trying to be neutral and generous towards Plutoniumboss at this point. A benefit of the doubt sort of thing, try to see things from his/her perspective or what ever. At this point my premature opinion is that this looks like a frivolous coop case. Worst wrongdoing I've seen on your part so far RBP is being mildly callus. I put in the "RBP might or might not have then acted out of vindictiveness" bit in there because that's the only angle I can see that Plutonium could have an actual case for, there isn't any good evidence for it though (that i've seen). What's the punishment for vindictiveness? ...eh shrug... Probably the same punishment as going around calling people cunts and telling them to choke on dicks. SolPyre (talk) 17:31, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

  Speaking of "editing out of vindictiveness"... How about Plutoniumboss selectively blanking only me out of an entire talkpage (which is against the Community Standards) out of spite, on the very same night s/he had told me to choke on a dick? Including posts that had stood without problem since 2015. Suddenly, they were no longer OK — and all of this because Plutoniumboss has no conception of the fact that other people exist and edit this Wiki too, and thus allegedly managed to lose work to an EC. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Close this now

This is simply a group of content disputes, no evidence or claim of powers abuse has been put forward. Sort it out on relevant talkpages. Bicycle^wheel 17:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Seconded.--JorisEnter (talk) 17:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)