2016 RationalWiki Mission Survey

If you've got time, please fill out the 2016 RationalWiki Mission Survey!

from FuzzyCatPotato (Talk), group Site wide (urgent) at 23:29, 12 April 2016

RationalWiki:Chicken coop

From RationalWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Vordrak 2)
(Vordrak 2)
Line 52: Line 52:
 
:::::::@Reverend Black Percy: I believe that the intention was to expose via a blog entry, not "blackmail". I'm pretty sure that he already made up his mind on whether to write a blog entry about RationalWiki when he sent me that message. He merely asked me for more stuff to use in the article, not information that he could leverage nefariously. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|talk]]) 16:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 
:::::::@Reverend Black Percy: I believe that the intention was to expose via a blog entry, not "blackmail". I'm pretty sure that he already made up his mind on whether to write a blog entry about RationalWiki when he sent me that message. He merely asked me for more stuff to use in the article, not information that he could leverage nefariously. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|talk]]) 16:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 
Let me just say with absolute clarity: allowing any user with standing legal threats against a wiki continue to act on that wiki is a '''bad idea''', legally speaking.  It raises all sorts of complexities to potential court cases if they should continue to interact with the users, ''no matter how legitimate their legal concerns are''.  Do not, under any circumstances, unban this individual until the ongoing legal considerations are resolved.  Wikipedia has that as a hard-and-fast rule, and we really should too.  [[User:ikanreed|ikanreed]] <sup><u>[[user talk:ikanreed|You probably didn't deserve that]]</u></sup> 17:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 
Let me just say with absolute clarity: allowing any user with standing legal threats against a wiki continue to act on that wiki is a '''bad idea''', legally speaking.  It raises all sorts of complexities to potential court cases if they should continue to interact with the users, ''no matter how legitimate their legal concerns are''.  Do not, under any circumstances, unban this individual until the ongoing legal considerations are resolved.  Wikipedia has that as a hard-and-fast rule, and we really should too.  [[User:ikanreed|ikanreed]] <sup><u>[[user talk:ikanreed|You probably didn't deserve that]]</u></sup> 17:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 +
-------------
 +
 +
This page should be archived. Nothing to see here.--[[User:-Mona-|-Mona-]] ([[User talk:-Mona-|talk]]) 17:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:16, 11 December 2015


This page is automatically archived by Archivist
Archives for this talk page: Archive list

Shortcuts:

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 long-standing 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.

If the issue is not conflict resolution, but concerns RationalWiki policies, suggested changes to how things work around here, or similar matters of principle or general importance, please post on the Community Standards talk page instead.

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


Vordrak 2

I think that you guys were too quick to ban Vordrak. His activity here didn't seem at all negative: Special:Contributions/Vordrak. His ban appears purely pre-emptive. Having been banned from Wikipedia for alleged "harassment" myself, I find it strange that there was been no resistance to my participation here while Vordrak was more or less banned on sight.

Disclosure: I become aware of this situation after receiving an Email from Vordrak. I haven't provided Vordrak with any information on Gooniepunk or Typhoon, although I did do some light research and saw Gooniepunk's LinkedIn profile before he deleted it (the deletion and its timing pretty much confirming that Gooniepunk is the guy in the profile). Vordrak doesn't seem to know much about Gooniepunk:

Gooniepunk’s college may be less impressed with him when they learn of his unjust online conduct. It is unfortunate that his exams are next week, but it is his choice of timing not mine.

If Vordrak saw the profile, he would've threatened to call Gooniepunk's employer rather than his college. The point being that I don't believe that Vordrak is as big as a threat as you made him out to be in the previous discussion. I don't believe that it was appropriate to ban Vordrak out of fear, and his complaints and concerns were pretty sound. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

He's an arsehole with threat incontinence. Everything about the tone of his email was thoroughly ban-worthy, even if his actual on-wiki conduct wasn't. Legal threats are bans. It's a simple as that. Queexchthonic murmurings 15:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't believe that RationalWiki should rob people of their options. Legal options are still valid options. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Banning someone from RW does not rob someone of any options, legal or otherwise. Queexchthonic murmurings 15:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
My mistake. What I should've said was RationalWiki shouldn't punish people for telling RationalWiki users that they have legal options to consider. Anyway, he was blocked before he sent the Email to Gerard. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Somebody's first response shouldn't be to escalate to legal threats and then "Can you give me info on these people".Keter (talk) 15:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
That was a response to Gooniepunk's first response. Vordrak has every right to be upset after being banned on sight by Gooniepunk. Cause and effect. You act, and there'll be consequences. Vordrak's actual first response was to approach RationalWiki. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
You should be mindful who you defend when legal threats are involved. RW has a very short fuse on that matter. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 15:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Especially since this querulant loser already appears to be attempting to build himself a case to blackmail our users and staff with. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
  1. He was not banned on sight. He was banned after troublesome initial edits.
  2. Even if it was a response to being banned, it is not a reasonable response.
  3. Even if a thinly-veiled legal threat was a reasonable response, the thinly-veiled other threats are not and more than sufficient grounds for an indefinite ban.
  4. Those other threats are technically illegal and could (in theory) be pursued with a much greater chance of success than Vordrak's own purported action. It would be a waste of time for something so trivial, however, but he's on far shakier legal ground than he seems to think. Queexchthonic murmurings 16:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Vordrak can get fucked right along with the horse he rode in on. 1. Legal threats. (Fuck-off 1). 2. New Guy who's a friend of Vordrak discussing a dox of Goonie and reporting to his university over bullshit here. (Fuck-off 2). In short, Fuck off, both Vordrak and Michaeldsuarez. (Can't dox me cuz I use my real name. And I'm in early retirement so, no one to report me to, except my grandson who's busy with video games and Big Macs.) So, once again, fuck off.---Mona- (talk) 16:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Although we occasionally speak to each other via Email, Vordrak isn't exactly my "friend". We didn't even meet under pleasant circumstances. I had a beef with him over what he said about Shii in that dumb "Paedophiles of Wikipedia" article he's so proud of. I even wrote the Encyclopedia Dramatica article on him. We share an interest in exposing and frustrating online pedophiles, but that's pretty much all we have in common, and even then, we differ in targets and approaches. I'm merely advocating the application of justice here. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Ok, like this: "New Guy who's a friend fuckwitted associate of Vordrak discussing a dox of Goonie and reporting to his university over bullshit here. (Fuck-off 2). In short, Fuck off, both Vordrak and Michaeldsuarez."---Mona- (talk) 16:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
@Reverend Black Percy: I believe that the intention was to expose via a blog entry, not "blackmail". I'm pretty sure that he already made up his mind on whether to write a blog entry about RationalWiki when he sent me that message. He merely asked me for more stuff to use in the article, not information that he could leverage nefariously. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Let me just say with absolute clarity: allowing any user with standing legal threats against a wiki continue to act on that wiki is a bad idea, legally speaking. It raises all sorts of complexities to potential court cases if they should continue to interact with the users, no matter how legitimate their legal concerns are. Do not, under any circumstances, unban this individual until the ongoing legal considerations are resolved. Wikipedia has that as a hard-and-fast rule, and we really should too. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


This page should be archived. Nothing to see here.---Mona- (talk) 17:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support