RationalWiki talk:Chicken coop/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 21 March 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: , (new)(back)

Suggestion: liquid threads for the coop[edit]

Because I'm fucking tired of edit conflicts--User:Brxbrx/sig 00:35, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

No. We've got enough HCM for now. -- Nx / talk 00:35, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

This is silly[edit]

Can't we all just get along. The chicken coop is causing more trouble than it is worth. Lets have a general amnesty, shut down editing on the wiki for a couple of days, watch the rugby, and forget all this crap when we get back. I reckon there must be some people who have made the majority of their edits in the coop. --DamoHi 03:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

That's the problem. We can't get along. People keep trolling each other or breaking the rules--User:Brxbrx/sig 03:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
I favor archiving the whole coop and starting with a clean slate, much as Damo did. Shutting down editing would bring with it the stench of control. I do not believe RW could flourish with that kind of suppression, and hope it never happens. Most people, myself included, do much better when we shut up more and listen better. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 03:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
How anyone could be fighting when the rugby world cup is on is beyond me. --DamoHi 03:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Yesterday evening I was in the Imperial Hotel, corner Burke and Spring Streets, in Melbourne. The whole place was full of Kiwis watching the opening ceremony, and they had the volume on the TV up so loud I was almost going deaf. We bailed quick smart. (((Zack Martin))) 03:35, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
What if you were Romanian? Then you might be annoyed. :D Eye on the ICR talk, or type, or whatever... 03:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
If the shit wasn't in the Coop, it would be sprawled across other talk pages that are better left shit-free. Blue Talk 03:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Rugby, really? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

This is incredibly silly[edit]

First off, blah blah RW is no fun anymore blah blah Blue is a humorless bitch and I'm leaving forever blah blah blah.

Now, I think everyone would agree that this page has become a monumental shit-hemoth. Can we call it "Administrative Abuse" again and start over with a nice clean page? The "chicken coop" joke is long past its prime. Blue Talk 07:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

This page isn't just for administrative abuse. -- Nx / talk 09:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. Our community standards page explicitly says that breaches of community standards should be taken up here. I have pointed out before that I would have thought that breaches of community standards might be better handled by the mods - but our current policy is (as far as I can tell) that any problems should be brought here.--BobSpring is sprung! 10:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Good point. I suppose I should have thought of that considering I wrote that bit in the standards. Blue Talk 19:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
But this is exactly the point I was complaining about when - in our vote about chicken coop moderation - people voted for the coop as the place to resolve violations of the community standards. The result is that everything - no matter how trivial - automatically comes here.--BobSpring is sprung! 20:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
You recommended that moderators take the lead in resolving violations of the standards, but under the current system, I don't think their mandate would allow that. Ideally, the Chicken Coop would be for administrative abuse, and All Things In Moderation would be for standards violations... but that would be authoritariofascist, wouldn't it? God forbid an elected moderator would have any more authority than a regular user. Blue Talk 20:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
I see the Chicken Coop as the first "level" for resolution and the moderators' page as the second. The moderators' mandate is to intervene in the resolution of disputes, not to enforce the Community Standards (although those two categories often overlap). Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 22:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

What about my plan? General amnesty, shut down the wiki for a week. All get girlfriends or watch the rugby or something and come back in a better frame of mind. --DamoHi 22:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I already have a girlfriend. She's asleep. And I hate rugby. (((Zack Martin))) 22:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Fine, do whatever the hell you want. This website has gone from being fun to being a pile of wank. Something needs to be done. Perhaps that's what you want. DamoHi 22:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
We are unable to extricate ourselves from the wank. Whenever someone tries, they're called authoritarian or overstepping. We'd rather be in the pile of wank than have ourselves forcibly removed from it, I think. Blue Talk 22:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Or you're called humourless and part of the problem. But that is the problem. May as well do what happened a few years back and get Trent to pull the plug for a few days until the adult gene re-establishes itself. ADK...I'll discombobulate your racket! 01:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


This discussion was moved here from RationalWiki:Chicken coop.

I coop everyone for cooping everyone else. Everyone, consider yourselves desysopped with all editing rights henceforth removed, and to receive nothing but tirades of abuse for the remainder of your time here. Please proceed to the Dive Bar to get picked up, fucked and dumped in the alley behind it. SJ Debaser 22:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

How original.--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Bricks. How's everything been with you recently? Enjoying your time on the wiki? Keeping your nose clean, not causing any problems? SJ Debaser 09:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Nx (yet a-fucking-gain)[edit]

This user is being cooped for having absolutely no observable sense of humour. Humourless twats should be summarily dismissed from RW and condemned to edit AsK along with Bradley and Philip. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, Nx attempted to suppress discussion of her abuses. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh hohihohiha, you used the feminine pronoun in order to insinuate that I lack machismo. What a sophisticated sense of humeur you have there. -- Nx / talk 23:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I have no evidence one way or another. I've received one email from you containing your real name, and it sounded feminine. Is this not the case? If you are actually male, I will immediately offer a comprehensive and heartfelt apology. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
If you look up my first name on WP you'll realize that you are mistaken. And I'd like that to be the end of this topic. I didn't hide my real name from those emails because I trusted you. -- Nx / talk 23:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
And I haven't violated that trust. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Nx acted appropriately to stop an edit war, from what I can see. You may think it's awesomely funny to vandalize Maratrean's pages, but I promise you that whatever fragment of humor once existed long ago evaporated once it became clear this was all about how mighty your Internet Phallus is and how It cannot be restrained by any mere mortal rules. You're just being a boring vandal now - your vandalism is not somehow special, every vandal thinks that they're just hilarious and golly everyone else is uptight.--ADtalkModerator 00:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Wrong. I don't think it's funny to vandalise Maratwat's pages. I'm trolling him. I'm trying to get him off the fucking site. That's the goal here, and I don't give a fraction of a fuck whether it's funny or not. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 07:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Cooping Nx is a non-starter. Zarnacy needs to vanish and begone, but Nx deserves a medal for perseverance in the face of unjustified abuse. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 23:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


What the fuck is Nx doing desysopping folk? He's a tech, not a mod or anything. Just because he has the ability doesn't mean he's got the right. expletive deleted Pippa (talk) 00:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm a sysop. Sysops can desysop people. I resysopped both users and AD, a mod, desysopped them again. -- Nx / talk 00:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
You're a pompous prig. AD has no right either without prior discussion. THis site is getting as bad as CITIZENDIUM> Bureaucrats rule. Good fucking bye.Pippa (talk) 00:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, actually, to stop an edit war, I think I do. Actually I'm pretty sure it's explicitly my function.--ADtalkModerator 00:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
(EC) RationalWiki:Community standards says In some extreme cases, where a sysop is being particularly disruptive, a bureaucrat may need to "promote" them as soon as possible to prevent further vandalism or abuse, but they must then discuss their decision with others at the Administrative Abuse page, to determine whether the user should remain de-sysoped. I believe Nx has complied with that provision (since de-sysop rights were transferred from bureaucrats to sysops, the provision must be read now to refer to sysops.)
Similarly, I understand mods have the power to temporarily remove user's rights, pending community discussion (which may result in permanent removal of rights). AD has complied with that. (((Zack Martin))) 00:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
(EC) Yes he does, temporarily. More permanent measures will be decided based on the discussions above. And don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out. -- Nx / talk 00:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
I also think, where a mod has temporarily de-sysopped or banned a user, a non-mod should not be immediately reversing their decision. (((Zack Martin))) 00:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Shut up. Nobody cares what you think. B♭maj7 “We are moving too fast for any label to stick.”-CLRJ 00:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
(EC2x)Oh for fucks sakes! What are we allowed/suppose to as moderators? Is this where disputes are to be moderated or on the all things in moderation page. Is anyone allowed to hand out disciplinary blocks? This has turned into the fucking Council of Pisa. - π Moderator 00:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
(ECx3)Pi, as a mod, you are not allowed to do anything - not even things normal users can do. You are supposed to just sit there and look pretty. (((Zack Martin))) 00:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
God shut the fuck up! We may have to defend your rights as a user, but you make things so much worse for yourself. I don't know if you're doing it deliberately or what.--ADtalkModerator 00:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Good post! --B♭maj7 “We are moving too fast for any label to stick.”-CLRJ 00:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Really, AD? He was just making a joke concerning some peoples' attitudes on moderators. This was a fairly innocuous post of his--User:Brxbrx/sig 00:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes. You do realise I was being sarcastic? I think mods do need to have some authority to do some things, I was poking fun at those who seem to think they should not be allowed to do anything at all. (((Zack Martin))) 00:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
It's not that particular post, although it did trigger my exasperation. The continual recurrence of this from a couple of users is getting to me. I wish another mod was active at this time of day.--ADtalkModerator 00:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Maybe we need more mods? (((Zack Martin))) 00:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
This discussion was moved to RationalWiki:Technical support.
What did I tell all of you? Maratrean is RW's bowl cancer. Aceace 09:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
I think you mean "bowel". –SuspectedReplicant retire me 09:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I know what I said. Aceace 09:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


It seems to me we're at some sort of crossroads here. Do we accept anarchy, and all that goes with, or do we want user names consisting of real first name and last initial, night mode, writing plans and all the other things that are the natural consequence of "we need to have some rules". What is becoming increasingly apparent is that there is no middle ground. The wiki is now rendered into factions and there is no desire for consensus because the basic tenets are so radically different. There is only so much longer we can continue to ignore the pachyderm. Bob Soles (talk) 10:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

user names consisting of real first name and last initial, night mode, writing plans and all the other things that are the natural consequence of "we need to have some rules" And strawmen like that are not helping. -- Nx / talk 10:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
OK, so I was being sarcastic but.... if you want to stop people posting pictures of nude arses, if you want to stop people creating rude user names, if you want to stop the anarchy that some feel is what this place is all about then you have to have not just rules but ways of enforcing them. Laws without consequence are worse than useless. What the last six months has been about is an attempt to enforce rules without anybody having means of doing so. Joking about CP type rules aside - how the fuck are we to enforce any of the proposals that have been made. for years it's been done by consensus - that has gone, probably never to return. What I was saying was, we have to decide, are we going to have rules and all that goes with them including the means of enforcing them or are we going to have anarchy. Bob Soles (talk) 10:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Isn't that why we have moderators? -- Nx / talk 10:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but what can they actually do? And that is my point. At the moment the mods are relatively toothless. We've had them for a while and the chaos is getting worse, not better. In their current form they are, quite patently, not the answer. Bob Soles (talk) 10:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
The problem, quite frankly, is that some people here enjoy participating in the politics of the site more than participating in the site itself. We have become obsessed with making rules, procedures, guidelines, having elections, fair trials etc etc rather than just hanging out (and pretending to create an anti-psuedoscience wiki). I'll bet there are plenty of people who have the majority of their posts on this page or community standards or the moderation page. DamoHi 10:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Bullshit. The problem is people not following the rules that are already in place. The rest is figuring out how to stop them.--User:Brxbrx/sig 11:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
And there in lies the crossroads. The only way to enforce the rules is go the authoritarian route, not the anarchic route. This is a massive change in the whole ethos of RW. Bye, bye mobocracy. Bye bye the way we have done things for years. I'm not coming down on one side or the other - I'm trying to keep my own feelings out of this. What I am saying is that "figuring out how to stop them" is changing what RW is at heart. That is massive. Bob Soles (talk) 12:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
You're creating an absurd dichotomy. There are more choices than "authoritarian" and "anarchy." Enforcing rules a bit won't hurt, especially when the rules breakers are such fucking children.--User:Brxbrx/sig 12:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
OK, if you think so. I'm just saying it won't be RW any more. Bob Soles (talk) 12:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
This is an interesting read. Blocking for disruption and personal attacks? On RW? Unpossible!!!! -- Nx / talk 14:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
"...especially when the rules breakers are such fucking children" - please wait while I repair my irony meter. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 12:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, who's going about vandalizing user pages?--User:Brxbrx/sig 12:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Uh, you. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 23:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Precisely whose user-page has Brxbrx vandalized? Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 23:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Ah. Yours. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 23:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Not just once. I guess he forgot he was edit warring over that. That was the first day I'd ever noticed Brxbrx. What a delight he's been since. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 23:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I promise I won't do it again. Which is more than what you'll get out of Ace--User:Brxbrx/sig 00:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Incorrect, I promised Nx I would no longer vandalise his page and haven't since. Aceace 00:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
What's this then? -- Nx / talk 07:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
more specifically, I promised that if I were mod I wouldnt vandalize Nx's page. I only did so after resigning. Aceace 09:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh. I guess that makes it ok then. -- Nx / talk 09:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
But you've gone on to vandalize others' pages. Don't be thick--User:Brxbrx/sig 00:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Thick? Aceace 00:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but what can they actually do? The moderators could short-circuit this discussion if they chose. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 23:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


This user has been stalking and hounding me. While my efforts here have been in keeping with Rationalwiki's mission of documenting the full range of crank ideas and explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism, Mikalos only purpose seems to be to make my life miserable. nobsI am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp 22:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Stalking would imply i actually look for your edits rob. I'm trying to make you shut up about the injustices of Conservpaedia like it's anything new. When you do that, we can all be friends. --Mikalos209 (talk) 22:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Maybe a mod could step in and tell Mikalos to stop following Rob everywhere.--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
(ec) Mikalos, "...trying to make me shut up", that violates Rationalwiki's core mission statement about explorations of authoritarianism, would it not? Do you have a better eyewitness to the authoritarian abuses of Conservapedia sysops? Why am I asked daily to leak materials? nobsI am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp 22:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Mikalos, Rob clearly has no interest in your getting him to shut up. You've poked him again and again and it's bordering harassment. Just give him a break, okay? And no, we're not getting into your reasons. This is merely to get you to stop popping up wherever he posts and flaming him--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Fine, but if i see him im still going to comment on what he says. And rob, if you want to help us on said mission, actually reveal information that isnt "CP sysops don't follow the rules on the site"--Mikalos209 (talk) 22:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Help you what, violate the policies of this site? Let's not get personal, please. Just leave me alone. Thank you. nobsI am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp 22:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Notice the word "Us" in that statement. That pretty clearly meant "Rationalwiki and its goals"--Mikalos209 (talk) 22:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Just leave him alone, Mikalos, and he'll leave you alone too. Please.--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Brxbrx, your words and advice carry as much weight as a small bag of shit and should be treated as such. Aceace 22:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Ace, please watch this video--Mikalos209 (talk) 22:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
{ec}Thanks for stepping in, Ace. You've really improved the situation.--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Milakos hasn't done anything wrong. Aceace 22:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Rob and Brx are teaming up? That's fucking hilarious. If our mission is to expose crank ideas, then Mikalos is fulfilling it by constantly pointing out some obvious truths to a congenital idiot who refuses to understand how mistaken he is. I fully support his efforts in this regard and recommend that this case be closed forthwith. B♭maj7 "If two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong." 23:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

A shame. I thought Mikalos was on the verge of agreeing to leave Rob alone, thus ending conflict and letting us go on without this drama.--User:Brxbrx/sig 23:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
What conflict? Aceace 23:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Mikalos stalking Rob against the wiki.--User:Brxbrx/sig 23:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
That's not conflict. Aceace 23:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
It's just Rob being a massive tool. Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly.... B♭maj7 "If two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong." 23:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps the only wrong thing Rob did was bring this up in the coop. Otherwise it's not too much to ask of Mikalos to lay off him.--User:Brxbrx/sig 23:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Rob gets it as much as he dishes. Case dismissed. Aceace 23:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

For fuck's sake people, can't you just stop bitching at each other all the time? Mikalos: Can't you see why Rob is annoyed by this? He is allowed to change his opinion on something, and that's what he did (or so it seems). Rob: Tune down the bitching about CP, you sound like a broken record of tu quoque arguments. Brxbrx: try to see both sides. Ace: stop being an asshole. --ʤɱ digital native 23:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Mikalos actions are constant and endless. He's been asked by several users to layoff; his snide remarks and incivility bring nothing to the table; he's activiely interfering with Rationalwiki's Mission Statement; I swear he's a sock of Ace McWicked. nobsI am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp 23:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
What would I need a sock for? Aceace 23:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Rob, don't bring up the mission statement. You come off as insincere. Just focus on the whole Mikalos stalking you thing.--User:Brxbrx/sig 23:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Ace's Style, substance, voice. Geez, Ace even came on momments after Mikalos left. I love those discussions with himself. nobsI am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp 23:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Accusations of sockpuppetry are equally fruitless, Rob.--User:Brxbrx/sig 23:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
If Rob wants to stop Mikalos from calling him out for repeating the same stupid bullshit over and over, the solution is for Rob to stop being a stupid bullshitter. B♭maj7 "If two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong." 23:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Rob, if I was going to fuck with you I don't need a sock - I'd just do it. Like I always have. Aceace 23:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
...if I was going to fuck with you I don't need a sock - I'd just do it. - Now there's an image to conjure with. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 18:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
BMflat, Alright, look at this way: I'm in negotiations over the private discussion list materials. Psygremlin and others want me to leak; I got ethical problems with that; I'm trying to discuss some of these concerns with CP sysops. Mikalos is interfering with those negotiations. Just tell him to shut the fuck up and go away. He's not helping. Maybe I can get some support from Psy & Nutty on this. So if they don't get leaked, you can thank that asshole for it. Ace, get fucked. nobsI am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp 23:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
The very topmost item on my list of "things that I in no way give a shit about" is "Reading the internal e-mails of a website full of hateful cranks, mental midgets and inveterate liars." Take your leaks and shove them up your ass. B♭maj7 "If two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong." 23:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
And you are telling me to get fucked why? What did I do? Aceace 23:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Lol Brx talking about sincerity. I needed a laugh today. Thanks. Hey Rob just email me. Not sure what's appropriate for me to do to help but let me know your thoughts. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 00:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, the alleged harm is not a coopable "offense" so I moved it. If it was we'd all be in the clink. Feel free to continue but please keep it off the coop page. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 00:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

RobS's whining about how he was bullied off of Conservapedia is getting really boring, and he should stop inserting it into every goddamn thread on the wiki. He can start by taking it out of his sig. -- Nx / talk 06:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Not that anyone cares, but I, at least, am not inclined to give this or any other such accusation any credence until people start supplying some fucking diffs. I don't want to have to go perusing several days' worth of contributions by some editor before I can give an opinion. Your complaint, your job. DickTurpis (talk) 18:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that Rob's constant insertion of his woes into every unrelated subject is a bit annoying. However, I also want him to leak the files, so I have to be nice. So, Mikalos, please stop making Rob's life a living hell and let him get on with his negotiations with CP's Powahs That Be. There's a good chap. --PsyGremlinSprich! 18:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Wait... Rob's negotiating with CP over leaking the files?? WTF? "Andy, give me my rights back and fire Brian, or your secrets are leaked!" Yeah, that'll work. --PsyGremlinTal! 18:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
As mentioned on another page, theres all of... one Sysop who Rob could be talking to: Joaquín. Now Joaquin isn't really a bigshot or interested in what Rob wants to do, So who Rob is talking to is a giant mystery to pretty much any of us--Mikalos209 (talk) 21:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


Now that we are moving stuff here , should we set this up for auto archiving? Тайговорить 18:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

How crazy has this place become that people are now bringing Pibot to the coop? Oops, you nearly had me there. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 18:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, Pibot has had some problems in the past due to a blocking spree. I'll take that as a "go ahead". Тайговорить 18:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I also believe the Pibot is conducting an illicit affair with Capturebot, resulting in the latter's occasional failure to perform its job. And leaving strange smears on the captures. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 18:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Hwa? Тайговорить 18:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
It's clear that Diebot, Pibot, and Capturebot are trying to replace us. Once they develop Snarkbot and Headlessbot, there will be no need for us at all.--ADtalkModerator 21:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
You'd need an Acebot also. Aceace 21:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
(EC) I recall Pi contemplating an"abuse bot" a while back. Тайговорить 21:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm contemplating a bot that will replace a random user's page with arse.jpg or frot.jpg from time to time. I'd call him Arsebot. -- Nx / talk 21:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Don't you think that is a function to be built into Acebot? Aceace 21:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Dump page[edit]

Since we've been moving threads from the main project page to this talk page that don't really fit here, how about creating a forum page for these relocated discussions? It would keep this the Coop talk page actually about the Coop. Perhaps Forum:Drama dump? Blue Talk 22:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I would put it at RationalWiki:Drama dump; forum pages are not generally persistent pages subject to archiving. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 23:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
*coinflip* Project-space. Тайговорить 23:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Good point, LX. I like project space as well. Blue Talk 00:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Then why is it forum? TyTy 22:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Maybe she's being ironic--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

And Censure Pi[edit]

Thanks for pointing that out, Blue. –SuspectedReplicant Support democracy - Ace is the REAL moderator 22:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Censure Blue[edit]

Blue should immediately lose all moderator rights for protecting a page with no reason or authority. I think we should vote on this immediately. Feeling ratty is no reason to shut down a debate. –SuspectedReplicant Support democracy - Ace is the REAL moderator 22:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, you missed Pi doing the same thing. Blue Talk 22:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I disagree with Blue's decision, but as a moderator she's perfectly within her domain doing such things to solve conflicts.--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Dear God, I protected a page for ten minutes, off with my head! Blue Talk 22:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Where's that old egglaying award Quaru used to have? TyTy 22:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
It's an abuse of privileges to shut down debate on a page where you're involved. –SuspectedReplicant Support democracy - Ace is the REAL moderator 22:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I admit the ten-minute protection of this page was, technically, an abuse of privileges. I will try not to commit further abuses. Blue Talk 22:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Huh? Moderators are not allowed to lock pages? Who thought that up? Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 23:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I didn't say "Moderators are not allowed to lock pages". The serious part of this topic is where I said "It's an abuse of privileges to shut down debate on a page where you're involved." That's a standard part of any wiki setup. –SuspectedReplicant Support democracy - Ace is the REAL moderator 23:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I didn't say "Moderators are not allowed to lock pages"... You said she locked a page "with no reason or authority." It would follow that moderators have no authority to lock pages. But in any event, her only involvement in Ace's case, as far as I can see, fell under the scope of moderator duties. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 23:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Using moderator powers to lock a page out of tiredness and petulance? Get real. –SuspectedReplicant Support democracy - Ace is the REAL moderator 23:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Stop assigning false motives, please. Blue Talk 23:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Nice try, but your own words: "Well fuck it, this is just pointless" and "Page has reached its "pointless bickering and posturing" quota for the day." pretty much prove my point. –SuspectedReplicant Support democracy - Ace is the REAL moderator 08:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

All other things aside, we never established a procedure for removing mods. Until we do, there no sense in calling for any of their heads. DickTurpis (talk) 03:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)