RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive69

RWRW, LGM, and Kazitor.

Timeline of events:

• RWRW requests sysop
• The request is withdrawn 6/3.
• Kazitor gives sysop to RWRW
• LGM removes sysop from RWRW.

The purpose of this coop case is to review Kazitor's demotion of RWRW to sysop, despite consensus. Also, RWRW has performed exactly one log action. I'm all for equality, but what happens when a mod ignores consensus?

I also want to review how if RWRW had not expressed a desire to change the wiki, the vote would have been 3/4, and he might have succeeded had he tried again. — Saj ^∞ 01:14, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Kazitor made a poor decision acting against consensus, but did not actually defy Community standards (as far as I can tell) and definitely did not engage in HCM. Move to archive. RoninMacbeth (talk) 01:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Ah. NVM, withdrawn. I won't withdraw this yet. — Saj ^∞ 01:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Although I we had a vote about Sysopping RWRW and although I opposed Sysopping RWRW, that does not mean anything as far as whether RWRW should be a Sysop. Any Sysop is entitled to give someone else Sysop power — that's how we operate. Unless and until RWRW abuses this power, RWRW is allowed to retain it. I continue to maintain however, that RWRW's edits were of insufficient quality (minor edits mostly) that I personally would not have given Sysop to RWRW at this stage. Bongolian (talk) 01:36, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Although Kazitor came from an admirable place—giving people sysop after being active contributors regardless of political views—I do not believe he should have demoted RWRW against community consensus that that would be dangerous. RWRW has expressed desire to completely rework the wiki against the wishes of the vast majority of the users, and giving him sysop is an unnecessary conduit to this end. Does this need a coop case, though? It seems like something that could be resolved on Kazitor's talk page. /spɻɪgi:nə/ (/tɑ:k/) (/kɑntʃrɪbju:ʃʊnz/) @ 01:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah it needs a coop discussion. This was an unfair de-sysopping but people like you would be happy to brush it under the carpet.--RWRW (talk) 01:45, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

It was an unfair sysopping in the first place. /spɻɪgi:nə/ (/tɑ:k/) (/kɑntʃrɪbju:ʃʊnz/) @ 01:46, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

What I am wondering is why RWRW is making a big fight to be demoted. @RWRW Please explain exactly why you want to be a Sysop, and I mean what is it you want that you cant do as a common user?King Rimuru 02:18, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

An almost fundamental aspect of this community is that almost every member has a mop, and as such differentiating sysops from "common users" is almost disingenuous. RWRW probably feels that he is being denied something fundamental to this community unfairly, and I am largely tempted to agree. RoninMacbeth (talk) 02:24, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I believe what was handed to him was fair, and we gave him helpful advice on how to improve when he was denied the mop, including a clearer pathway being creating a new account without the persona or at least moderating the tone. He has failed to follow or even show interest in improving and instead complains about being denied something he wants. We have given him so many chances so many times if you look in his talk page history as well. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 03:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I have no intention of creating a new account but I did rename my account and delete my Party. In what way does that mean I " failed to follow or even show interest in improving"? --RWRW (talk) 03:31, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

(EC) I suppose I'll have to make this clear: I cannot easily tell the difference between a parodist and the real deal. From my perspective, telling him to drop the RWRW persona is about as strange as telling me to drop the RoninMacbeth persona. Not to mention that his tone has, in fact, moderated from when he first joined, when even I thought that he was probably a troll. Furthermore, I kind of think the line that he needs to make other mainspace edits besides category changes and adding references to be dishonest. If he did make any other edits, he would either have to write from a perspective that is not his own or accept that almost all of his mainspace edits will be rolled back. Of he added substantial edits to our pages on politics and religion from his perspective, would you actually let them stand in all likelihood? RoninMacbeth (talk) 03:39, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not "as strange" because if this was a persona, it was made to oppose RationalWiki and the perceived liberalism it has, and he followed through with the persona a bit. I don't think he moderated that much and so I haven't seen much improvement. I don't see how renaming or deleting a party is a sign of improvement. I suppose it's a first step, but I don't see an effort. I agree that the category edits are good and helpful, but they're very minor and it hasn't done much to offset the earlier attempt to be disruptive. Again, if he didn't go with "RationalWiki is too much liberal scum" or whatever at the beginning and headed just to category edits and ref editing, you'd have a case there. As for the last part, you'll have to clarify. A lot of attempts to add the right-wing perspective fails as they're accused of "white-washing" or not being substantial. If RWRW can make a substantial, well-referenced (using appropriate sources as examples for claims), well-justified (through the edit summary or talk page comment; "this is unfair because 'specific parts of the article being pointed out'), and possibly with courtesy, then his changes can stay. I think this is reasonable concerning large edits to a page. I believe I also discussed what I like to see regarding smaller edits, being that I need to see more smaller edits and constructive comments, so we get a balance. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 03:52, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

RWRW's response

I will outline some important points regarding this.

• I have had Sysop powers for 12 hours so I have had plenty of time to abuse them but I haven't
• I have made may constructive edits but you all just want to ignore that
• Much of the opposition was because of my aim to turn this wiki into Conservapedia. As some of you may have noticed I deleted the Political Party in question.
• This is blatant political bias.

--RWRW (talk) 01:49, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I am in favour of giving RWRW a "test period" to use the tools. — Saj ^∞ 01:52, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I concur. /spɻɪgi:nə/ (/tɑ:k/) (/kɑntʃrɪbju:ʃʊnz/) @ 01:59, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Deleting your political party page is irrelevant, RWRW. I would not consider adding categories to pages to be particularly constructive if that's what you're referring to. I continue however to stand by my previous statement on this page. Crying political bias over and over does not help your case. Why don't you make some substantial textual edits or create a new page that is more than just a stub? It could help convince the doubters. Bongolian (talk) 02:05, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree that blaming bias isn't adding anything. I don't believe that substantial edits are grounds for demotion though; there's nothing wrong with minor edits or sticking to talk pages. —Kazitor, ^pending 02:14, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

You have expressed a desire to completely alter RW's focus, mission, and slant. This cannot really be done without you taking down your enemies somehow, which would require abuse of sysop powers. There is good reason to believe you may use these powers for ill, but I am in favor of testing it out. /spɻɪgi:nə/ (/tɑ:k/) (/kɑntʃrɪbju:ʃʊnz/) @ 01:59, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Do you seriously believe RWRW would succeed though? I am completely in favour of promoting (in the RW sense) someone who would do that, because that is destructive. But unless RWRW actually does that, who cares? —Kazitor, ^pending 02:03, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think he would succeed, but he would definitely be able to do a good deal of damage. /spɻɪgi:nə/ (/tɑ:k/) (/kɑntʃrɪbju:ʃʊnz/) @ 02:13, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

"Constructive"

Outside of category maintenance, you have this so far.

• Admitting to trolling after being told to stop by Cheeseburger Face (though GrammarCommie didn't help at all).
• Whatever this or this is. Also, another quibble with GrammarCommie.
• More over-the-top behavior, which includes insulting people who didn't want to give you sysop powers.
• Enticing disruption for not getting what you wanted. If others think you didn't mean it, then this would be parody.

You haven't made much in a short time span, but these, outside of category changes, are the bulk of your most recent edits. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 03:14, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Kazitor's response

To be honest I wasn't really thinking about the vote on RationalWiki:requests for user rights at all. Here on RW, the idea is that anyone that isn't a destructive vandal/troll gets sysop. RWRW fits that description, especially in recent times compared to when they first registered. I also believe it is better to give RWRW a chance to prove they won't do anything bad rather than withhold rights indefinitely, as any negative outcomes could be easily undone and would have no lasting effects.

At this point in time, I am seeing a bad deviation from what it seems RW used to be like, where anyone that doesn't "toe the party line," so to speak, gets banned and reverted just for saying something stupid one time. This needs to stop. —Kazitor, ^pending 01:57, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Nice points. We are turning into the worst of wikipedia's management. — Saj ^∞ 01:59, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Kingdamian1 is a sysop and was added pretty recently, despite being against RW's missions. This is not a case of RW being uptight and politically intolerant; this is self-preservation. /spɻɪgi:nə/ (/tɑ:k/) (/kɑntʃrɪbju:ʃʊnz/) @ 02:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't see how this is a self-preservation issue when you can simply have someone take his mop away if he does something idiotic. I feel like the possible harm is pretty insignificant. DuceMoosolini^{Forum Romanum} 04:31, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

LeftyGreenMario's response

We outlined clear in RationalWiki:requests for user rights that sysop should not be given. Kazitor's action is inappropriate as it violates the mob consensus. I had to give RWRW sysop revoke because Kazitor's actions may be considered contentious and I don't want any precedent being set by one sysop just ignoring mob consensus (and said sysop also disagree with mob consensus). Regardless of RWRW's views or even edits, RWRW has not ever adhered to the advice spelled out within the consensus, being that if RWRW is a parody account, the user behind the account should ditch the persona and make a more legitimate account. I have not seen any improvement in RWRW's behavior. RWRW has been disruptive several times. His only recent edits have been minor category changes and quibbling with GrammarCommie and other users, which is hardly constructive.

This isn't a matter of personal views or "toeing party line", this is a matter of conduct, which has also been brought up in the requests for user rights. This is a matter of following through community consensus. That being said, he always has a chance to redeem himself whenever he wants in the future. If he's willing to gain our trust to get demoted, the opportunity remains. However, if mob consensus goes against my stance, I will bow to wishes of the mob. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 02:52, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Decision?

I'm in favor of demoting him if the community thinks it is for the best. RoninMacbeth (talk) 02:17, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Brief reminder that demote means "promote" in normiespeak and promote means "demote," just in case anybody's confused. /spɻɪgi:nə/ (/tɑ:k/) (/kɑntʃrɪbju:ʃʊnz/) @ 03:34, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

It should probably be between "give mop" and "withhold mop", something like that. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 03:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Seems settled more or less. Removing sysoprevoke. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 06:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Give mop

1. Demote for the time being, but promote him the second anything fishy pops up. /spɻɪgi:nə/ (/tɑ:k/) (/kɑntʃrɪbju:ʃʊnz/) @ 02:19, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
2. If we can demote nobs and KD1, we can demote RWRW. RoninMacbeth (talk) 02:21, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
3. Demote as per my previous comments. I would also like to call on the other moderators besides myself and make sure that they have an opportunity to speak up: @CheeseburgerFace @CowHouse @DiamondDisc1 @LeftyGreenMario and @Spud. Bongolian (talk) 02:23, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
4. Fancy seeing me here. —Kazitor, ^pending 02:35, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
5. Very, very strongly. — Saj ^∞ 03:19, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
6. Give him the mop. I think the worst case scenario is that someone has to take it away again. DuceMoosolini^{Forum Romanum} 04:33, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
7. Give him the mop. My previous reason for voting not to give him the mop was based on his stated intention to essentially thoroughly vandalize the wiki by changing it into a new Conservapedia. Personally, I never thought that stated aim was anything other than a joke. What I did not want to do, however, was set a precedent by giving sysop rights to someone who made such a claim. Because the next one to say something like that could be a dedicated troll who would make good on his threat to replace the content of every page with a picture of his genitals. The fact that RWRW asked to have his account renamed, removed his talk about taking over the wiki from his user page and asked to have his Conservative and Right-Wing Alliance page deleted showed a desire to make something of a break with the past. It appears that I was wrong when I thought he was really a left-winger who was pretending to be right-wing for a joke. It looks like he genuinely self-identifies as a conservative but was pretending to be a bit more right-wing than he really is for a joke. In my opinion, he did drop his former persona enough to be given a second chance and get the same rights that practically everybody else gets.There! I'm not such a scumbag after all, am I? Spud (talk) 05:32, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Don't give mop

1. I rather RWRW doesn't get spoonfed a demotion; he should earn it first. This seems like the most reasonable option. He constantly begs for it, gets denied once, and he shouldn't earn it suddenly. The difference between nobs and Kingdamian1 and this user is that the former two seem to hold legitimate views while RWRW acts like a parody account, and I believe any purely parody accounts should not get sysop nor is it necessary for them to get such tools. Parody accounts do not benefit much from the tools so I see little reason they need those. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 02:52, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

   リムルテンペスト 02:56, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

   Apologies, but how can you tell he is a parody account or not? RoninMacbeth (talk) 03:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

   This is mainly my opinion, but it's from the over-the-top presentation in the comments including lofty desires and other people also playing along. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 03:06, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

   You're using comments made almost a year ago. Is that not scraping the barrel a bit? --RWRW (talk) 03:08, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

   You're setting a first impression that hasn't changed since whatsoever. Also calling me and others "scumbags" because we didn't agree to giving you sysop powers. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 03:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Goat

1. Leaning towards demote, due to the apparent change in consensus - but i'm not sure. — Saj ^∞ 02:23, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
2. I would like to hear reasons he seeks demotion that don't require being demoted. (edit) considering he has seemed desperate to be demoted.Řïmũŗû Ţèmpéŝţ 02:25, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Kingdamian1

Do what you want, but is it really necessary for your guy to be doxxing on your site, which is very much against your rules? I mean, this kind of behavior off-wiki is why I said what I said in the first place. What a Wonderful World (talk) 22:50, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I did NOT dox anyone! AND I DO NOT behave "like this" ANYWHERE else. I am respectful and considerate! Kingdamian1 (talk) 22:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

You posted where I go to school at, which is not listed anywhere on RationalWiki. What a Wonderful World (talk) 22:57, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

YOU MENTION YOUR OWN DAMN SCHOOL on your userpage! Kingdamian1 (talk) 22:58, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I am a college student at what you would call a fundie school. I won't name which one because I don't think they would want to be affiliated with RationalWiki in anyway. I take my courses online. Clearly I don't want my affiliation posted on RationalWiki. What a Wonderful World (talk) 22:59, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

So how did I dox you? YOU YOURSELF make sure to explain that you are a college student at a fundie school! This is what YOU SAY NOT ME! I simply quoted it! Kingdamian1 (talk) 23:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

There are several fundie schools, I deliberately didn't mention which one. What a Wonderful World (talk) 23:04, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

So how do you know I doxxed you? Maybe it was just a guess? Kingdamian1 (talk) 23:05, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Facebook? Other wikis? What a Wonderful World (talk) 23:06, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

What? What do you mean? I don't have Facebook. I said, maybe I just guessed your University, and it was NOT an attempt at doxing? Your Uni is the first thing that would come to mind when someone says "fundie school", so maybe I just guessed it right? Kingdamian1 (talk) 23:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Bullshit. Of all of the fundie schools, you just happened to guess the right one? What a Wonderful World (talk) 23:13, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I have not seen any evidence, so at this point I can only say that doxing someone, even falsely, is not allowed here. Claiming that a doxing was just a guess is a lame excuse. Bongolian (talk) 23:10, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Here's your evidence. I'd appreciate if that is revdel'd. What a Wonderful World (talk) 23:12, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I DID NOT DOX ANYONE! That is bullshit! He indicated that he was in a "fundie school!" Those are his own words. Unlike this user, I do have a moral compass! I don't dox! Kingdamian1 (talk) 23:14, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Besides that, if you haven't been snooping on my Facebook page and some flavor of public record, how would you know who my employer is and my home address is? What a Wonderful World (talk) 23:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Wait so you should be able to threaten me and my family and I am just supposed to let it go? Also, I did NOT release ANY OF THAT information at all! This coop is a HUGE conflict of interests! We should just stop it here! Kingdamian1 (talk) 23:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, since I DO have a MORAL COMPASS, which you SEVERELY lack, I will NOT be releasing ANY of your information to ANYONE AT ALL! EVER! But shove your threats you know where! Kingdamian1 (talk) 23:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

For those in the peanut gallery, this guy has been told by numerous other RationalWikians, including moderators, to back off. Do you see me "threatening" him further? In contrast, he continues to threaten me, dox me, and curse at me. Hey, this isn't my wiki, but there's a reason this guy isn't welcome at Conservapedia and had to be threatened with a block at Wikipedia. Up to you how you wish to deal with him because I honestly don't care. See ya later aligators! What a Wonderful World (talk) 23:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

He is a liar! And Conservapedia has a POLICY to NOT judge users based on their behaviour on other sites! You are a LIAR! Kingdamian1 (talk) 23:28, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

This is stupid. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 23:30, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

What a Wonderful World (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposal

On Wikipedia they impose interaction bans on disputing users. I don’t know if that exists on RationalWiki but might we consider it as a solution? -RWRW (talk) 23:03, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• I'd be fine with that, but this is a lot smaller community so it's less practical. What a Wonderful World (talk) 23:04, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Block Both for 3.6 Days, Get Them to Cool Off

Damian is clearly flustered, and I have no sympathy whatsoever for WWW's threat. I say tempblock them until they can calm the fuck down. RoninMacbeth (talk) 23:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Fine by me. What a Wonderful World (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Now that the two of them are no longer arguing here, I recommend that we collapse this coop until the block periods expire and the two come back on. If one or both of them start fighting, we can discuss additional sanctions. RoninMacbeth (talk) 23:44, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Archive this quickly. Cosmikdebris (talk) 23:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

user:Nerd and user:ikanreed

Yeah, I'm reporting myself because I'm being a bit shit about all this too. Nerd is edit warring Misandry for reasons that seem to me an inability to acknowledge they're wrong when they feel personally insulted. They're totally in the wrong in this case, because they're adding content suggesting that feminists advocate male genocide or whatever, for absolutely no justification I've seen other than that they in the vaguest sense approve of the tone. This needs to stop and I advise a ban for them. Ban me if swearing or calling that kind of behavior bullshit is also too rude for school. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:53, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

For your information, please read this section of the talk page. Please also see this section on my own talk page. (Yes, school is the bedrock of modern civilization.) Nerd (talk) 17:58, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I certify that this is indeed where I eventually used bad words to describe bad edits. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:02, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

God fucking damn it, ikanreed. Did you get ANYONE else to weigh in before going to the coop? This is not HCM. Not even close. RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

No one else was, and they were seriously being an ass and bad edit warring was happening and the current state of the article is really bad as a result. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:19, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

"Being an ass" is not HCM. What the hell are we supposed to do about "being an ass?" Ban or bin him? Mild dickishness, though unpleasant, is not (I hope) a rank offense. Please go back to the talkpage, work it out, and let the community figure things out before going to the coop. Seriously, ikanreed, you've been here long enough to know better. RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:24, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Close the coop case. Try to talk it out with each other while being civil first. If all else fails then coop. Bongolian (talk) 19:05, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

No really I'm 2 inches from unmopping and banning everyone involved.

This shit is unreal. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 00:42, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Please read the guidelines, @Ikanreed. Nerd (talk) 00:47, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I really like this vague title.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 00:48, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Moving this to the archive. If anything, you're nearing HCM.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 00:49, 28 July 2018 (UTC)