RationalWiki talk:Chicken coop/Archive4

Fedorahas 3x reverted my coop comment![edit]

I posted this:

Avenger, I'm not re-litigating all the above. They've been resolved, and not in your favor. As for Arisboch taking me here to the coop that one time, he was ridiculed and eventually agreed it had been stupid. Finally, you did some bullshit having to do with English and footnotes, disputes I was not involved with -- that also got you in hot water.Stop already.-

He just reverts and won't give a hunt of a reason!---Mona- (talk) 21:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Stop adding to the archive pls. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 21:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Is ded[edit]

Given that my glorious proposal is now a burning garbage fire, anyone else got suggestions on how to fix the coop? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 19:41, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

What, in the name of Gord, is it SPECIFICALLY that you want fixed? As in, what is the end result you are looking to achieve? --Castaigne2 (talk) 20:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

FCP, I understand that you're probably tired of the constant HCM the site appears to be in lately and tbh I like stupid Coop cases as much as I like being jabbed in the throat with a harpoon, but bureaucracy and red tape ain't the way to fix it tbqh fam. That said, fundamentally, this was a well intentioned proposal, and I quite like how you're trying to get shit done around here. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦

^{The female monster of deporting!} 20:32, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

People are bringing stuff to coop because they have grievances that: a)They think are serious and b)probably won't be sorted by both parties talking it out. A lot of the shitpost coop cases boil down to one or both users being petty fucks going "I'm not touching you" over and over. The nly real solution is some minor, more relaxed place to put all the "Big brubbah won't share wib me mommy" coop cases. Rationalwiki: The Pig Pen, maybe? It's all slop anyways.Keter (talk) 20:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm agnostic on FCP's specific proposal here, but I want to second Raysenn's praise that FCP is taking the proper leadership role as a mod -- just enough that's actually necessary. Not a dictator. Good job. Goonie as well.---Mona- (talk) 21:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with being a mod. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it does. There should be a mod barrier to starting a coop case. Our current moderators are showing good judgment, and I support the barrier.---Mona- (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. That goes against RW being an anarchic mobocracy. It is not how RW is run. --Castaigne2 (talk) 00:19, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I cannot understand where this idea of mods being some kind of leadership or "super user" position comes from. Mods are not special, have no leadership authority and should basically do fuck all unless actually called upon and are required. Ace ⁱ⁹ 11:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Some people are uncomfortable with a lack of hierarchy. There is a theoretical hierarchy (mods and, should the shit get that awful, board), but neither group actually likes work and neither group is actually mummy. The actual answer is the mob has to come to consensus and work shit out. Mods' voices might be respected in calming the stupid down, but the actual editors need to work their shit out - David Gerard (talk) 13:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

There seem to be two problems: [1] Coop cases that are really just whining, and [2] Coop cases that devolve into interminable ad hom/tu quoque sessions. I hoped to reduce [1] by making a longer, more-formal coop-creation process and [2] by having a set sanction and voting period; people overwhelmingly didn't like the idea. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 23:26, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a solution that is not bureaucratic in nature? --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

[1] & [2] are both usually resolved by recognising the coop case as a waste of time & archiving it speedily. Your proposed solutions will have the opposite outcome & commit us to wasting more time wikilawyering over frivolous cases before we can wash our hands of them. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:32, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikilawyering is the entire point of the coop anyway. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦

^{Up and down and all around} 23:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the spirit of the proposal in that coop cases should actually have some meat to them, but as I said, bureaucracy is not the way to solve it. Maybe we should simply be more willing to apply the "speedily archive/delete stupid cases" pseudo-policy. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦

^{Masturbation masturbation pies pies Brian Cox} 23:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Looks like DG votes for that idea. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 23:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

This was a well-intentioned proposal FCP but for reasons others have put forward, I think it would probably have had the opposite effect to that intended. I too like the idea of a firmer application of the "rapid bin-it" approach to frivolous coop cases. Like so much around here, that just needs documenting. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 23:54, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

yes, full points for at least trying - David Gerard (talk) 23:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

indeed. The mods are charged with the power to play Calvinball - David Gerard (talk) 23:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I think that would be a much better solution then the bureaucratic one. --Castaigne2 (talk) 00:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

We've had edit wars over archiving dumb (or not dumb) coop cases. These frivolous cases drain the wiki of time and energy. We elect our mods, presumably based on our assessment of their judgment. Soon, we will have six of them. Anyone whose proposed coop case has actual merit would be able to find at least one of six. Those who cannot, very likely have no appropriate case. A mod can say: "If you think this is a problem the appropriate venue is the [Saloon, AfD, a users talk page etc...]"---Mona- (talk) 00:19, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, I must disagree due to RW being an anarchic mobocracy. Having to bend knee and beg for permission from Lord God Moderators does not an anarchic mobocracy make. I hate anarchy and even I have to admit that. --Castaigne2 (talk) 00:24, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, welcome back. On-topic: we don't have to be a "pure" anarchy; while I agree it's a good idea in principle, there are definitely some downsides to this. I think that some exceptions to pure anarchy are a good idea, just like exceptions to "pure" capitalism or socialism are a good idea. This doesn't necessarily need to lead to executive WikiLawyering like on Wikipedia, by the way. Carpetsmoker (talk) 05:39, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps if I lay in a pond and distributed swords...? Bicycle^wheel

12:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

+1 for Bicyclewheelswordocracy - David Gerard (talk) 15:11, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

It would not be a bad idea that all coop cases be decided with a fencing duel. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦

^{Follow me, set me free} 16:41, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Protection level for this page?[edit]

When we were getting flooded with ridiculous bollocks, it got set to "moderator" (meaning "go away"). Right now it's "sysop". I suspect it should be "autoconfirmed" in normal daily life (when the fuckwittery does not warrant a soupçon of applied Stalinism). What do others think? - David Gerard (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

It's only move protection, editing is still open to everyone. Either way, this was pushed by Weaseloid, so go ask him. Typhoon (talk) 09:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes. "Open to all" is fine too for the general case - David Gerard (talk) 09:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Protection against moving should be there, either at sysop or moderator level, as it was messy when somebody did move the page & mucked up all its archives. Editing protection should only be needed temporarily when the page is getting spammed by drive-by accounts. ωεαşεζøίɗ

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 11:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, it seems odd that Typhoon was able to remove moderator-level protection. Shouldn't it be something that only moderators can remove? Щєазєюіδ

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 11:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Moving this page didn't muck up the archives. Moving all the archives mucked up the archives ;-) Carpetsmoker (talk) 11:15, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

How to fix the coop[edit]

I think we can generally agree that the coop has recently seen way too many shitfests, petty slapfests and whathaveyou that are just a waste of time for all involved. Thus, I hereby propose... 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:14, 9 January 42016 AQD (UTC)

Proposal #1: Mod-lock the coop when no cases are active; make users consult with a moderator before a case can be opened[edit]

Now, I know protecting pages for an undetermined amount of time isn't the done thing on RW, but I really think this would be an effective as well as easy to execute solution. A hypothetical problem might be when a user has an issue with several mods, though then RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation would probably be the more apt place to go to anyway.

Objections and other proposals are always welcome. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:14, 9 January 42016 AQD (UTC)

No. Moderators aren't supposed to be gatekeepers, & the whole idea of this page is that it's somewhere regular users can raise issues about (among other things) admins abusing their rights. So it needs to be an open forum. When frivolous cases get posted, they usually get archived pretty quickly. The current shitfest is largely the product of Avenger & a few others persistently derailing & whatabouting + far too many other users indulging these digressions. Page-locking isn't a solution to that. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not saying it'd solve all our problems, but the problem with many coop cases is the lack of any civil discussion preceding the cases. Maybe I'm being too optimistic, but I think having to sit down (metaphorically) with another human being and talk about the situation before you get to sling accusations around in front of a rowdy mob of onlookers could defuse a lot of petty conflicts. All I'm suggesting is putting a (sentient) safety on the coop-trigger. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:45, 9 January 42016 AQD (UTC)

And I'm saying don't. For one thing, it undermines the principle of this page as a community resource. For another thing it treats moderators as oligarchs & undermines the principle that they are just regular editors with a few extra tools. And I doubt it will resolve anything: if timewasters & concern trolls can't shitpost here, they'll still shitpost somewhere else (probably everywhere else), & we'll see a lot of wikilawyering about what should or shouldn't make it into the coop. ωεαşεζøίɗ

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 02:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Where would they post? Talkpages? Those usually don't get a lot of attention anyway. The saloon bar? It gets removed as irrelevant. True, a lot of frivolous coops get archived pretty swiftly, but still a considerable amount of them are allowed to balloon out of proportion before that happens. But as I said, other proposals are always welcome. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 02:16, 9 January 42016 AQD (UTC)

I proposed deletion. Community wasn't interested. Wēāŝēīōīď

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 02:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The RW community are a sentimental bunch. That people wouldn't want to delete this old-timer of a page was kind of a given. ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 02:33, 9 January 42016 AQD (UTC)

What you're proposing would change the role of moderators significantly. The idea of moderators having a very small footprint is as much to protect you as it is a RW ideology. You will find that having to make decisions without getting a sense of community consensus will be very draining on you, and will likely lead to the same kind of burnout Paravant/Goonie experienced. It will also likely lead to you making some very unpopular decisions, as the mob is fickle and ever-changing.

It's not a bad idea, but I don't think it would work, and I see it as inconsistent with the current goal of moderators.

As a final note, coop cases only get as much oxygen as editors are willing to give it. If people are talking here, then there is probably something to be talked about, regardless of how trivial you and I think it may be. Tielec01 (talk) 03:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I see how it could increase the drain from having to act as a mod more regularly (though festering coop cases can be a huge drain too, I should note) (and for some, talking to other users about the community and other site-related stuff is already everyday stuff).
However, I disagree about it notably changing the role or goal of moderators. Really, read the first function of mods listed at RationalWiki:All things in moderation. And then there's the 2nd function: "to help boot-strap certain policies or procedures that we struggle with". Procedures that we struggle with? That basically screams "the coop" to me. The community already elects the mods intending them to monitor discussions and keep the vitriol under control. And moderators already interfere on a regular basis in coop cases. I don't see any major changes on that front. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 03:49, 9 January 42016 AQD (UTC)

As a mod, I don't want this job either - David Gerard (talk) 13:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Status Quo[edit]

TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 01:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Rockin' all over the wiki. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I.e. the old and tried RW tradition of doing nothing and letting problems fester. Guess I should've seen that one coming. >.> 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:36, 9 January 42016 AQD (UTC)
You're getting rid of a system of redress that was originally put into place precisely to prevent things like administrative abuse. What if an editor is wrongfully vandalbinned, for example, and the moderator refuses to take up the case? Moderator intervention should be a last resort to a problem, not a first resort. Furthermore, the option to automatically dismiss coop cases with extreme prejudice (i.e: if somebody is creating a case just to waste time) is still available last I checked. Old guard (talk) 04:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I fail to see how letting people run their proposed coop cases past a moderator first (of which, I'd hope, there'd be more than one available) is worse than allowing mods to arbitrarily dismiss coop cases when they feel like it. If anything, I'd say the latter encourages mod abuse far more than the former. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 05:17, 9 January 42016 AQD (UTC)
There is nothing stopping someone from talking to a mod first. ħuman 22:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Please stop. Typhoon (talk) 05:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Uh, could you be a bit more specific? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 05:10, 9 January 42016 AQD (UTC)
I'm tired of seeing this page in the recent changes. Just keep him permabinned, stop trying to "fix" the coop and lets move on. Typhoon (talk) 09:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Telling me to "stop" trying to fix the coop when I've only just started seems a bit premature. >.> Also, while I find the aesthetics of RecentChanges a very unpersuasive argument, I find it peculiar that you use that as counter-argument, seeing as my current proposal would greatly reduce activity on the page in question (and so also how often it's gonna show up in RC). 141.134.75.236 (talk) 10:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
"Argumentum ad RecentChanges". You can just filter out the RationalWiki namespace, or show only the Main namespce in RecentChanges. Carpetsmoker (talk) 10:45, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Right. About as useful as having night mode by default, unless a mod has pushed the dead-man switch within the last five minutes. SmartFeller (talk) 05:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I might be missing some context here, but that sounds rather overly dramatic. O.o 142.124.55.236 (talk) 05:23, 9 January 42016 AQD (UTC)
There was some discussion of having mods in different time zones, to make round-the clock mod presence possible. I will not, for the moment, make the modest proposal that there be a five-minute timer (vaguely similar to the "dead-man switch" on a railroad locomotive) which would put the wiki into night mode, disabling IP editing, if it didn't get tickled regularly by someone with mod access. Unless the mods agree to stand watch 24/7, locking the coop is a suboptimal policy. SmartFeller (talk) 05:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Sure, it might add some hours of delay to the process if no mod is around at that hour, but it's not like coop cases are ever resolved that quickly anyway (except when it's a non-case that gets insta-archived). 142.124.55.236 (talk) 05:39, 9 January 42016 AQD (UTC)
Mods have sometimes pulled lengthy disappearing acts. There are other reasons that locking the coop is a poor policy choice. Some have been articulated by others above. I have had my say, and am done here. SmartFeller (talk) 05:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that there's a fundamental problem to be fixed - as annoying as some meandering or frivolous coop cases might be. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't think that frivolous coop case are a large problem, and if they would be, I'm not sure if modlocking the page is a good solution for that. Carpetsmoker (talk) 09:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not saying it's the solution. I welcome other proposals. But so far the only thing that's popped up is "let's keep doing things exactly the same". :/ 141.134.75.236 (talk) 10:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I do think there should be some sort of formal threshold for starting a coop case. Mod permission probably isn't the best barrier, tho. But I don't have any brilliant ideas.---Mona- (talk) 22:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
You greatly misunderstand the purpose of the Coop. It is literally the wiki's cesspit, putting the stink in one place. We're not going to somehow set up offices in it - David Gerard (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not convinced there's a problem that we can usefully address. [mod hat on] Mods can't fix personal issues between editors; if there's a clear mob consensus to tell the head-butting idjits to fucking cool it, we can then enforce that. Mods do have to act quickly when the wiki's being abused for actual harassment, but that's a separate issue. - David Gerard (talk) 13:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I didn't even see a description of a problem that needed to be solved, so I certainly don't think a change is needed. "Participation" in coop cases is purely voluntary, as is awareness of them (unless one is involved, I suppose). How can that be a problem? ħuman 22:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 00:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
--Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 06:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposal 3 - Ignore the Coop unless you have something pertainent to add[edit]

should work. Unless you are involved or have something relevant to add just go about your day as if nothing happened. Ace ⁱ⁹ 11:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Sounds okay, but how are you going to implement it? Just adding another note to all the notes at the top that nobody reads... probably won't do anything. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 11:18, 9 January 42016 AQD (UTC)

the great thing about my proposal is nothing needs to be implemented. Everyone just need to act like adults for this to work. Amazing! Ace ⁱ⁹ 18:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

now all we need is adults! - David Gerard (talk) 18:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

^ 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

we don't even need adults, we just to act like adults. Ace ⁱ⁹ 20:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

You've changed, matey :p rpeh •T•C•E• 20:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I have a 2 yr old daughter now which means my drug and alcohol abuse has been curtailed slightly. It's made me feel strange. Ace ⁱ⁹ 20:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

It's only downhill from there. Pretty soon you get terrified they will see you as an example, and while you know you can mange these amusements, you damn well aren't so sure about her.;)---Mona- (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

So we need actors then. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

All the wiki's a stage,

And all its trolls and authors, merely players;

They have their LANCBs and their returns,

And one account in its time plays many parts,

Its acts being seven ages. At first the newbie,

Mewling and whining about undue rules.

Then the grudging author, with wiki tools

And basic knowledge of templates, creeping with slow bandwidth

Unwillingly to reddit. And then the lover,

Posting with a fury, with a hundred rants

Made about wiki etiquette. Then, a soldier,

Full of weird rules and long-forgotten deals,

Jealous in honour, sudden, and quick in quarrel,

Seeking wiki karma,

Even in the face of trolls. And then the justice,

In fair round belly, with long edit history,

With user rights, and many wiki friends,

Full of stories about how good it used to be,

And so he plays his part. The sixth age shifts

Into the lean and slippered pantaloon,

With little on-wiki contribution.

His youthful posts, unfazed; a site too full

For his Watch List, and his once-might nick

Turns again towards newbie level, pipes

And whistles in its sound. Last scene of all,

That ends this strange eventful history,

Is second childishness and mere oblivion,

Sans bandwidth, sans wiki, sans posts, sans everything.

rpeh •T•C•E• 21:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

That's some lovely pottery indeed. Who wrote it? ħuman

23:01, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Some bloke called Bill. Reboots are in vogue though. rpeh •T•C•E• 03:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposal 5: Only allow entrance to the Coop if a certain amount of money is donated to the RMF first[edit]

First of all this would make the donation drive fill up faster. And don't forget that it would bring peace and quite. And people who annoy you will leef you alone cause they all poor! And so all problems are solved! 95.90.213.109 (talk) 23:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

We already have people who literally think that donating $10 to RMF gives them a right to spam the various (completely unofficial and unaffiliated) RW-related Facebook groups, so this is probably a terrible idea - David Gerard (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Which one is the real, real, official, real, RMF-owned FB page, anyway? ħuman

23:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

This one, the page, which is also linked in the sidebar. A pile of old-guard RW editors have posting rights to it; mostly it's been me and Psygremlin posting there of late (mostly WIGO sorta stuff). There are various groups, none of which are the least bit official and which constitute fan-of groups - David Gerard (talk) 09:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Charge a cent for every character you add to the RationalWiki:Chicken coop. I'm betting that will cut long-winded waffling about red herrings to a minimum. Carpetsmoker (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Then they'd poop all over the rest of the wiki, sadly. This is the cesspit - David Gerard (talk) 20:17, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Interesting[edit]

The coop case against Typhoon is (still) going on, five whole days after their last edit!!! Holy shit! I don't know whether to keel over in laughter or weep at the sad state of this community these days. Yellow (talk) 00:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

New coop case: Iscariot and Hipocrite[edit]

I'm a mod. According to the folks above, us mods have absolute power and love to abuse it. Unfortunately, Iscariot and Hipcrite are absolutely correct. As a result, I've decided to send them to the gulag for the crime of ~~being contrarian edgelords~~ "speaking truth to power".

Of course, I must pretend to respect democratic process -- so we'll still have a vote. The rules of the voting are: I get 1,000 votes, and everyone else gets 0.

Best of luck! Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 16:55, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Glorious Pro-Gulag Palace[edit]

32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 16:55, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Stinky Anti-Gulag Junkyard[edit]

Nobody, because mods = gods

Seriously, FCP...[edit]

...don't smoke crack and edit!--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 17:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC) 17:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Huh? Hipocrite (talk) 19:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

What the fuck? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 22:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

What's wrong with clear rules?[edit]

Having clear rules that are independent on the politics of either RW itself or the world at large could prevent a lot of drama in the future. And having them agreed on by the community would increase the likeliness of them being followed. What's not to like about that? 95.90.213.83 (talk) 16:32, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Avenger, we'll bear it in mind. Wēāŝēīōīď

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:34, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

‎Reagan's Revenge[edit]

Reagan's Revenge is vandalizing:

Does this even need a vote? —€h33s3βurg3rF@€3 (talk • stalk) 23:59, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I just vandal-binned the fucker, but agree with CBF. Ban him. He's a prawn. --MtD^Bogan 00:06, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3

(talk • stalk) 00:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I just necked him. --MtD^Bogan 00:18, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Hay, no slurs against South African outer space aliens with a disposition towards cat food! Worzelpete (talk) 22:26, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

overlengthy vandalbinning[edit]

this user returned after absence of a length and notices that the vandal bin has not been lifted yet. the binning is impeding this user's efforts to contribute to rationalwiki articles. the contrib logs display the duration of absence.FAMAS (talk) 18:34, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

GrammarCommie abusing mod powers[edit]

Hello,

After numerous attempts to provide evidence backed by scientific data, including one that even uses the erroneous study that GrammarCommie insists remain in the article as an attempt to prove a point it doesn't prove, and logical, sound, rational arguments, GrammarCommie insists on reverting my edits to the page https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Autogynephilia and has locked the page to prevent further edits. "Discussion" about this (if you can call it that, given that GrammarCommie eventually refused to reply, despite plenty of evidence given to meet his demands) is here: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Autogynephilia#Unscientific_edits_by_GrammarCommie

I understand and appreciate that there is a mass movement to defend transgender individuals these days, but as rational, science-minded people, we must examine the scientific evidence in question, and if it does not stand up to logical scrutiny, then we must change our views or we will be every bit as anti-science as the religious zealots we all despise. I don't propose the changes I made to this page out of fear or hatred of transgender individuals - I propose these changes in the name of science and rationality. Isn't that what this Wiki is about?

In lieu of evidence and a logical argument, I hope that someone else concurs that GrammarCommie is being intellectually dishonest here for the sake of his own personal agenda/opinions, and ignoring sound, rational arguments because they offend his sensibilities.

A case involving you has been raised at the Chicken Coop. Feel free to comment.

--LogicalNerd (talk) 16:32, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

First, GrammarCommie is not a mod. He's a sysop. There's a difference.

Second, this is not what the coop is for, despite what GC said. Get an actual mod in the relevant talkpage before going to the coop. Here is the list of users to contact.

Third, this isn't the actual coop. This is the coop's talkpage. RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:32, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

You are correct, @RoninMacbeth, about everything you have said; this does not rise to the level of a coop case. Generally speaking, if one has a quality reference (peer-reviewed, non-pseudo science journal) that supports one's claims and the other person does not, then one wins the case. If there are contradictory science-supported claims then they should both be cited and explained. @GrammarCommie @LogicalNerd Bongolian (talk) 18:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Posibly relevant, but I made an answer at the relevant article and am very happy to debate it further. I just addressed the basic points at first since I was late to it, but I do recognize a run-of-the-mill TERF when I see one. Not a Coop Case, and I will be happy to debate them there. But I can understand if GC got tired of seeing the same old talking points again, especially considering the annoying writing style of the other part. Dendlai (talk) 18:38, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Two points: One, I am indeed tired of seeing the same PRATTs trotted out again and again, without changing anything more than the target group. And two, According to the site rulebook, if someone inserts PRATTs or other questionable content into an article, I as a user should remove it. As the old saying goes, "I don't make the rules, I just enforce them." ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:03, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for submitting this on the wrong page - I was just following what GC said to do. Although I am still not quite sure where I should have submitted this on the coop page if not the talk page, had this actually been a proper coop-worthy request. I understand now that it is not, though, and I will tag the mods on the talk page for the article in question. Thanks for the help, and sorry for any mistakes I may make; I am new to all of this Wiki editing stuff. @Dendlai - I don't see anything from you on the page in question. Also, I'm not a TERF and I resent the implication. As I mentioned above I have nothing against trans folks, I just don't think science supports the idea that they are women. I would be happy to engage with you on the talk page for the Autogynephilia article in question, but again I see nothing from you there. @GrammarCommie This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say you're abusing your powers. You sure seem eager to enforce the rules while simultaneously giving bad advice to newbies, like telling me to take this to the coop page before tagging the mods. Let's take this back to the talk page on the article where it belongs. If you feel my arguments about a specific scientific study are "PRATTs" - and I can't imagine that's the reality, given how obscure this study must be compared to more mainstream, widely-scientifically-accepted studies, which, yet again, clearly shows your irrational personal bias to simply write off these arguments as "PRATTs" and refuse to refute them - feel free to provide me with a simple link to where they've been refuted so I can read up. --LogicalNerd (talk) 19:52, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

* dons Mod Hat *

This is not even remotely close to headless chicken mode. CLOSED.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3

(talk • stalk) 19:59, 4 May 2018 (UTC)