RationalWiki:Chicken coop
AgingHippie (Talk | contribs) (This is a non-issue. Thanks for stopping by.) |
AgingHippie (Talk | contribs) m (Protected "RationalWiki:Chicken coop" ([edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 00:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (expires 00:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)))) |
Revision as of 00:55, 18 February 2015
The chicken coop is for the avoidance, containment and resolution of cases of Headless Chicken Mode (HCM). Despite the name, this tends to be serious business.
This page can be used for reporting cases of administrative abuse (abuse of sysop or moderator abilities such as blocking, page deletion, or user rights management), general abuse (such as trolling, wandalism, and personal attacks), and conflicts which cannot be solved through normal talk page discussion (such as longstanding edit wars or article content disputes). Please be specific and include links to any relevant discussions, page edits or logs.
Please try to resolve conflicts with other editors directly through discussion on their user talk page before reporting them at the chicken coop. If you do report an editor's behaviour here, please leave a message on their talk page to alert them to this, so that they have a chance to discuss their actions here.
All editors are welcome to comment on the cases raised here, and to try to reach a consensus on any action to be taken. If no consensus can be reached, and the HCM seems to be escalating, moderators are expected to take some action. However, any serious or permanent solution, such as removal of rights or lengthy ban, requires a community vote here according to the guidelines laid out in our Community Standards.
Contents |
MadmanJohnson doxxing
So MadmanJohnson has been making a total ass of himself in regards to me over the past week on this website. Not only has he pointed people to my dox and gleefully enjoyed people's reactions to it but he's using /m/ and Gamergate's nickname for me and as the thread above shows he's basically culled everything from my ED page to make a baseless complaint about me. Seeing as it's clear to me that it's against the rules for me to block him for being a funless and tasteless cockbag doing nothing but being an ass to me, is the chicken coop the right place to officially get him to lay off?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah. I just blocked MadmanJohnson for a week for doxxing. Let us proceed to discuss this, whether he should be unblocked or stay blocked - David Gerard (talk) 11:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- Good Lord, not a peep of disagreement in ten hours? That's a first for RW ... - David Gerard (talk) 21:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- I would have thought doxxing shouldn't be taken lightly - the reasoning behind it can't be anything but malicious. It's something the site shouldn't tolerate. I'd be in favour of a permanent blocking. We don't need that shit here. PsyGremlinTal! 21:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- I've certainly got no personal interest in unbanning users who come to my talk page unprovoked and drop outside drama for no apparent reason. I don't know if they were trying to convince me of some great character flaw of Ryulong or something, but it definitely rises to the definition of both doxxing and malicious slander. Ikanreed (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- First time I've ever heard about this. I think the links may have changed or something -- was there a doxx on the page that MadmanJohnson was pointing to? I didn't see one aside from a name and e-mail address as of this post (and now I think I need to dip my phone in bleach or something).
If the doxxing accusation turns out to be legit, then I fully agree with Psy and Ikanreed here. It's serious business.Edit: So I'm not crazy -- Weaseloid also indicating that they're not seeing doxxing. Noir LeSable (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- First time I've ever heard about this. I think the links may have changed or something -- was there a doxx on the page that MadmanJohnson was pointing to? I didn't see one aside from a name and e-mail address as of this post (and now I think I need to dip my phone in bleach or something).
- I agree with the permanent ban. I can't see anything but Madman attempting IRL harm for Ryu. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦
X-Men! Welcome... TO DIE!!! 23:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Does the doxxing in this case consist of anything other than mentioning that there is an ED page about Ryulong? I think that's probably been mentioned on RW before, plus it's mentioned in the Reddit link which was under discussion in the thread where Johnson posted that comment. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ
Methinks it is a Weasel 16:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- And repeatedly posting info from it, claiming to be exposing Ryulong's evil ways - David Gerard (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- So not really doxxing. It doesn't look like an uncontroversial case, & should be voted on before any long-term ban. ωεαşεζόίď
Methinks it is a Weasel 00:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- Whatever you want to call it it has no place here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- It's unnecessary but it's not really doxxing, unless we want to stretch the meaning of that word to breaking point. I think the block Ryulong gave to Madman Johnson was unjustified but given that noone appears to really care that much about him abusing his sysop rights I'm loathe to pick up the argument (again). Tielec01 (talk) 04:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- Using an ED page with doxx to smear and harass another RW user is something that deserves a block. Typhoon (talk) 06:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- Tielec01 I never blocked him.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- Apologies Ryulong you are correct it was DG who blocked him. It goes without saying I still think what Madman did was not super serious, but definitely not the right thing to do. A permanent ban would be as silly an over reaction as anything I've seen CP do.Tielec01 (talk) 08:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- That would be an apt comparison, if CP blocked people, after discussion, for revealing personal details for the purpose of smearing another person. CP blocks people immediately, without discussion, for almost anything other than sycophantic obedience. I'd be fine, at the least, with promoting MadmanJohnson to not autopatrolled and not sysop, so that we can review all of his edits to cut down on doxxing; at the most, a block. FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 16:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- He's already not a sysop after previous fuckwittery. Running out of downgrades here - David Gerard (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, so the current sitatuion seems fine. FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 17:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing how MMJ was "revealing personal details" at all. The comments he posted, whether accurate or not, were about Ryulong's activities on Wikipedia, Twitter, etc., not his name or location or any IRL stuff. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ
Methinks it is a Weasel 19:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- He's directing people to look at a website that is shitting on my life.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Weaseloid. I was under the impression that he was actively revealing or pointing somewhere that was revealing your personal information (hence my earlier skepticism). There's a very sharp difference between either having dirty laundry aired (if true)/your name slandered (if false) and doxxing. Noir LeSable (talk) 21:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- He's directing people to look at a website that is shitting on my life.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing how MMJ was "revealing personal details" at all. The comments he posted, whether accurate or not, were about Ryulong's activities on Wikipedia, Twitter, etc., not his name or location or any IRL stuff. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ
- Yeah, so the current sitatuion seems fine. FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 17:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- He's already not a sysop after previous fuckwittery. Running out of downgrades here - David Gerard (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- That would be an apt comparison, if CP blocked people, after discussion, for revealing personal details for the purpose of smearing another person. CP blocks people immediately, without discussion, for almost anything other than sycophantic obedience. I'd be fine, at the least, with promoting MadmanJohnson to not autopatrolled and not sysop, so that we can review all of his edits to cut down on doxxing; at the most, a block. FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 16:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- Apologies Ryulong you are correct it was DG who blocked him. It goes without saying I still think what Madman did was not super serious, but definitely not the right thing to do. A permanent ban would be as silly an over reaction as anything I've seen CP do.Tielec01 (talk) 08:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- It's unnecessary but it's not really doxxing, unless we want to stretch the meaning of that word to breaking point. I think the block Ryulong gave to Madman Johnson was unjustified but given that noone appears to really care that much about him abusing his sysop rights I'm loathe to pick up the argument (again). Tielec01 (talk) 04:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- Whatever you want to call it it has no place here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- So not really doxxing. It doesn't look like an uncontroversial case, & should be voted on before any long-term ban. ωεαşεζόίď
I have no dog in this fight, and will vote "Goat" in any vote that may arise from this debate, but it's clear that the idea of a permaban is not unconditionally accepted by a majority of voices in the debate. Given that, I shall unblock Johnson until the community arrives at a consensus as to how to proceed. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 22:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Sterile continues to delete a page in my usespace
I would like to recreate John Duffield. To that end, I created an alternate version of the John Duffield article. Originally, I recreated the article; I realize that this was not the correct action and apologize. I then created an AFD page; I realize that this was not the correct action and apologize. I then created a post discussing recreation on Talk:John Duffield, which appears to be the correct action.
All of this would be unimportant, if Sterile did not repeatedly delete User:FuzzyCatPotato/John Duffield, on which I was attempting to change the article to make it acceptable for recreation. I believe that this is against current site policy:
- RW:CS#User_pages states: "An editor's user page, and other pages in their user space, is their personal space and they are free to do with it what they want (with common-sense-exceptions, such as patently offensive material, copyright violations or spam)." I do not believe that User:FuzzyCatPotato/John Duffield is "patently offensive material, copyright violations or spam", though I may be incorrect.
- RW:NEW#What_can_I_do_with_my_user_page.3F states: "You can put whatever you like on your user page. (With some obvious restrictions like obscenity, slander or racism.) Only you can edit your user page - unless you are arbitrarily convicted of vandalism in which case you will be put in the vandal category and your user page may be edited accordingly." I do not believe that User:FuzzyCatPotato/John Duffield contains "obscenity, slander or racism", though I may be incorrect.
So my question is: Can Sterile delete User:FuzzyCatPotato/John Duffield, if I choose to recreate it?
I bring this up at the coop only because Sterile stated, "Please do not respond, as I tire of you lawyering."
I apologize for the drama, wasted time, and wikilawyering. FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 00:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- The guy has posted here claiming libel. I say leave it alone, or put up a bond to cover all related legal fees and/or damages from any libel lawsuits incurred because of your article. Better yet, leave it alone. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 00:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- [1] Nutty Roux (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- This is unrelated, but it's something that RationalWiki doesn't have an official position on. If every statement in "my" article is cited, then is it libel, and are we at any threat of a libel suit? Is any threat of libel enough to prevent an article from existing? If any threat of libel is enough to prevent an article from existing, what should be done with stuff like NaturalNews or similar articles? FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 01:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- Generally people have control over pages in their user space, but there are common sense exceptions & posting libel is obviously one of them. Fighting hard to restore something that nobody else seems to want & other people have cited as a possible legal problem doesn't seem like a sensible course of action. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď
Methinks it is a Weasel 01:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- "are we at any threat of a libel suit?" The threat of a libel suit is not based on the content of the pages you create. The threat of a libel suit is in the person who launches such a suit. Remember, even if all the T's are crossed and all the I's are dotted, just getting to the part where a judge sees that and dismisses the suit is an expensive process. Even a frivolous suit will cost the actual people who are responsible for this place time and money. So why not just let this go. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 01:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Weaseloid:
- Nobody seems to want: Dunno, Castaigne seems supportive and the discussion isn't finished, so more might support.
- Libel: What's libelous about it? Nobody's said anything specific.
- @AgingHippie:
- If the threat is in the person, I again ask: "If any threat of libel is enough to prevent an article from existing, what should be done with stuff like NaturalNews [whose author has raised legal threats against detractors] or similar articles?" FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 02:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- If you think there are problems with that article, raise them on its talk page. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď
Methinks it is a Weasel 02:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- I don't. I'm asking what the difference is between the Natural News article and John Duffield article. FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 03:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- If you think there are problems with that article, raise them on its talk page. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď
- "are we at any threat of a libel suit?" The threat of a libel suit is not based on the content of the pages you create. The threat of a libel suit is in the person who launches such a suit. Remember, even if all the T's are crossed and all the I's are dotted, just getting to the part where a judge sees that and dismisses the suit is an expensive process. Even a frivolous suit will cost the actual people who are responsible for this place time and money. So why not just let this go. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 01:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- Generally people have control over pages in their user space, but there are common sense exceptions & posting libel is obviously one of them. Fighting hard to restore something that nobody else seems to want & other people have cited as a possible legal problem doesn't seem like a sensible course of action. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď
- This is unrelated, but it's something that RationalWiki doesn't have an official position on. If every statement in "my" article is cited, then is it libel, and are we at any threat of a libel suit? Is any threat of libel enough to prevent an article from existing? If any threat of libel is enough to prevent an article from existing, what should be done with stuff like NaturalNews or similar articles? FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 01:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- [1] Nutty Roux (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
You don't own the article. It's licensed by CC by SA, meaning it belongs to all the editors who worked on it, not just you, although you did not cite it when you copied it. Further you continue to go against all the other editors who unanimously voted against you and thumb them in your attempts to reverse that decision by recreating it and, by your own admission, continue to wiki lawyer, which you most certainly are not sorry about and then try to slime my name by taking it to the coop rather than discussing the content of the article, You mock an editor who is threatening to sue us in the article. Who's really the problem here? You are not the victim you pretend to be. Sterile (talk) 03:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- It's not "my" article. Have I said so? FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 14:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- You've taken an article that people in the community worked on and then decided should be deleted and moved it to your user space with no history of the article or talk page and then claim it is untouchable. If that's not a claim of ownership, I don't know what else is. Sterile (talk) 14:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- How could and why should I have moved the history? I've never claimed the article is untouchable, only that it'd be nice if it wasn't deleted. FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 14:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- You've taken an article that people in the community worked on and then decided should be deleted and moved it to your user space with no history of the article or talk page and then claim it is untouchable. If that's not a claim of ownership, I don't know what else is. Sterile (talk) 14:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- I again apologize for recreating the article. Afterward, I opened discussion on the article's talkpage to reform the proposed article so that it would pass muster.
- If the proposed article is libelous or mocking, please quote it and I'll resolve it.
- If I've "slimed" your name, I apologize. (You doubt sincerity. I can't fix that.) You explicitly said not to reply, but continued to delete the proposed article. FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 03:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- You are not addressing the points about community consensus. You have, in fact, systematically stepped around them. The vote was to delete the article. Why are you so disrespectful? Sterile (talk) 03:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- I've been pretty explicit in trying to get community consensus about an article which I feel is substantially different from what was originally discussed. First, I attempted to determine consensus on the AFD page; after that was rejected, I attempted to get consensus on the article's talkpage. Is this "sidestepping"? FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 04:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- Remember when I suggested you make some changes to stop pissing people off, and instead of doing so, you kept doing the things that kept pissing people off? Yeah, that. Sterile is correct and sensible for continuing to delete the page, and you really need to stop with this. The community voted to delete the article. It should remain deleted. The end. - Grant (talk) 04:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- Two things:
- This "the article was voted to be deleted so it can never exist again" stuff some people are saying seems pretty silly.
- The near-inviolability of userspace is a social convention that the powers that be are free to acknowledge or ignore. In this case, they've chosen the latter citing concerns for a libel suit. (Not unreasonable since the proposed article mentions threatening libel suits is kinda this guy's schtick.)
- Fuzzy, I'd let this rest until John Duffield becomes notable enough to risk being sued by or you can somehow come up with solid evidence that he'll never follow up on his threats. (Neither is a likely scenario in the foreseeable future.)
- *whooshes off again* 141.134.75.236 (talk) 05:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- Nobody's saying point #1. The article was deleted and FCP immediately copied it into userspace. Now that some minor alterations have been made (none of which adequately address the reasons it was deleted in the first place), he's trying to push it to mainspace again. - Grant (talk) 07:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- Two things:
- Remember when I suggested you make some changes to stop pissing people off, and instead of doing so, you kept doing the things that kept pissing people off? Yeah, that. Sterile is correct and sensible for continuing to delete the page, and you really need to stop with this. The community voted to delete the article. It should remain deleted. The end. - Grant (talk) 04:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- I've been pretty explicit in trying to get community consensus about an article which I feel is substantially different from what was originally discussed. First, I attempted to determine consensus on the AFD page; after that was rejected, I attempted to get consensus on the article's talkpage. Is this "sidestepping"? FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 04:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- You are not addressing the points about community consensus. You have, in fact, systematically stepped around them. The vote was to delete the article. Why are you so disrespectful? Sterile (talk) 03:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Robert's Rules of Order, admittedly not used here, would say a decision made by the community can only be reversed in a certain amount of time if 2/3 of the group votes to reconsider and the motion has to be made by someone who voted against the measure. You are asking us to reconsider something that has little change by one person who was invested enough in the article to be the only person to vote for keeping it again, why are you so disrespectful of this community? Basically you think the rules shouldn't apply to you any you can lawyer out of this vote. Sterile (talk) 07:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC).
- Looking through the talkpage] of the John Duffield article, there is little that was done, other than dick-waving, to refute, even, the claims he was making about physics, let alone his claims of having been wronged by the tone of the article. This makes me very uneasy, because if it was that hard for editors here to make the case, to the man himself, about why he's a crank, then I dread what we could do if he actually sued us. I've not seen (nor do I care to see) what changes to the original article FCP had in mind. FCP (and a few others) did a great job on the aforementioned talkpage of baiting this guy to get even madder and, thus, throwing out the legal threats. Totally irresponsible, and an article written by the same rabble of people about the same man, with apparently only cosmetic changes to it (whether or not it's in mainspace or userspace) makes me come down hard on the side of those who say that this is an article that's too hot for RW to handle. The deletions of the John Duffield articles in both the mainspace and userspace were exactly the right thing to do, and FCP should cease trying to convince us otherwise. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 11:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Multi-response
- @141:
- When does somebody become important enough to risk a libel suit? FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 14:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- ALL DEFAMATORY AND LIBELOUS CONTENT MUST BECREMOVED. THERE IS NO NEGOTIATION HERE. The foundation is not taking risks on your behalf. Sterile (talk) 14:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- I agree. I was responding to 141, who said "I'd let this rest until John Duffield becomes notable enough to risk being sued by". FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 14:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- It's subjective of course. Basically when he becomes notable enough that a clear majority of prominent contributors want an article about him? If he became as notable as, say, Richard Dawkins and he was spreading fake science theories, maybe the potential threat of a libel suit won't bother people that much? It's a hypothetical either way, and a very unlikely one at that. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- ALL DEFAMATORY AND LIBELOUS CONTENT MUST BECREMOVED. THERE IS NO NEGOTIATION HERE. The foundation is not taking risks on your behalf. Sterile (talk) 14:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- @GrantC:
- If you don't think the proposed article fixes the previous one's errors, please tell me what specifically is still wrong. FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 14:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- This comment still shows that you're fundamentally missing the point. It generally takes a lot to reverse a deletion so soon, and the community consensus is quite clearly (and has quite clearly been) against you on this, and yet you still fight. - Grant (talk) 17:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that a lack of errors in the proposed article is enough to reverse a deletion. I'm asking you and people who oppose the proposed article to state specifically what is wrong with it. Very few have. FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 17:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- Plenty have, through this discussion and where it came up previously. You haven't adequately addressed those points, and you certainly haven't provided ample justification to reverse the deletion. - Grant (talk) 17:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- Please show me where people have stated that something specific is wrong with the article, after which I haven't changed the article to match. FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 17:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- At this point I almost think you're being deliberately obtuse. Your "fixes" aren't sufficient. I would recommend dropping this. - Grant (talk) 19:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- If the fixes aren't sufficient, where are the problems in the article? I'm not asking to be obtuse, I'm asking because I can't fix problems unless I know about them. FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 19:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- At this point I almost think you're being deliberately obtuse. Your "fixes" aren't sufficient. I would recommend dropping this. - Grant (talk) 19:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- Please show me where people have stated that something specific is wrong with the article, after which I haven't changed the article to match. FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 17:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- Plenty have, through this discussion and where it came up previously. You haven't adequately addressed those points, and you certainly haven't provided ample justification to reverse the deletion. - Grant (talk) 17:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that a lack of errors in the proposed article is enough to reverse a deletion. I'm asking you and people who oppose the proposed article to state specifically what is wrong with it. Very few have. FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 17:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- This comment still shows that you're fundamentally missing the point. It generally takes a lot to reverse a deletion so soon, and the community consensus is quite clearly (and has quite clearly been) against you on this, and yet you still fight. - Grant (talk) 17:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Sterile:
- You say little change has occured. I disagree. Getting commnunity consensus again is relevant, and I've explicitly sought it. If consensus is that the proposed article is the same as the old and still not worthy of creation, then I will obey that decision; if not, then I hope you will. FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 14:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- No. We voted. It is in the past. There is no future for this version of the article. You are trying tske something that has been decided and change it, explicitly disregarding community consensus. Do you not understand what the word NO means? I'm sorry for you if no one in your life has forced you to deal with a decision that is not in your favor. Sterile (talk) 14:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- The proposed article is fundamentally not the same as the one the community voted on. The original article was 3kb, mentioned Duffield's qualifications, stalked Farsight's activity on forums, frequently called him crazy and a crank, asserted he's unable to answer questions, asserted he spammed scientists, asserted Deepak's publisher wouldn't touch his book, asserted he supports the militia movement and NWO conspiracies, asserted that he's unhinged, cited very few non-forum sources, and didn't even describe his ideas. The proposed article is 11kb, describes Duffield's qualifications, merely states that he's active online, lists his publications, describes at least some of his ideas, describes his style of quoting physicists, describes his litigation threats, and cites his interview and directly quotes him rather than citing a forum. I think the proposed article is different enough to merit another discussion. Where's the harm in doing so? FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 15:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- No. We voted. It is in the past. There is no future for this version of the article. You are trying tske something that has been decided and change it, explicitly disregarding community consensus. Do you not understand what the word NO means? I'm sorry for you if no one in your life has forced you to deal with a decision that is not in your favor. Sterile (talk) 14:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- @RNS:
- If you look at the proposed article, you'll see that I've removed every statement Duffield said was libel. If I "baited", I apologize; the goal was to find out and remove untrue and litigable statements, as I've done here and on the List of internet kooks. FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 13:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
What would it take for you to admit defeat here, Fuzzy? It seems like everyone else is against you on this, but still you keep coming back with "yeah but—". Ŵêâŝêîôîď
Methinks it is a Weasel 15:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- A consensus against recreation, after the proposed article is actually discussed. FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 15:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- I've deleted the article and taken away your sysop rights until you understand that a bunch of editors asking you not to do something means you should probably not do it. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- You know what I undeleted the page to do? To remove the "baiting" content that Sterile mentioned, after which I immediately attempted to redelete it; you got there half a second before I did. I would provide a link, but since I'm not sysop, I can't even access the deleted revision screen. Ah well. FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 15:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- Though by now I presume I won't be believed, and this will just be seen as trying to avoid the decision of the coop. FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 16:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- Revision histories are saved, even when an article is deleted. What does undeleting the article to remove the baiting actually accomplish? - Grant (talk) 17:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- If the article is that important to you, Fuzzy, you can always save the content on a Word document on your computer and edit it to your likings. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:15, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- Though by now I presume I won't be believed, and this will just be seen as trying to avoid the decision of the coop. FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 16:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- You know what I undeleted the page to do? To remove the "baiting" content that Sterile mentioned, after which I immediately attempted to redelete it; you got there half a second before I did. I would provide a link, but since I'm not sysop, I can't even access the deleted revision screen. Ah well. FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 15:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- I've deleted the article and taken away your sysop rights until you understand that a bunch of editors asking you not to do something means you should probably not do it. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
So, there seem to be two issues here. First, is there a possible version of this article that we would want? Second, is FCP's version it? FCP is mainly addressing the second point by saying that he will make changes until it is deemed acceptable. Many editors object to the first issue. They say there's no reason to fight over this because he's really not all that important. I'm going to say that he's not notable enough for more than a paragraph on his ideas on the appropriate page. Therefore, FCP, it does not actually matter if your proposed article is not libelous, I still feel it's not a good thing for this wiki. Also, don't move potentially libelous content to your user space after it's deleted. (I could easily see something similar to this happening with other pages that were deleted for being badly written rather than off-mission. e.g. Carly Fiorina. Perhaps some mechanism or guideline could help avoid another fight like this in the future.) --TiaC (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
