RationalWiki:Chicken coop

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search


This page is automatically archived by Pibot
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 longstanding edit wars or article content disputes).

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


[edit] User:MadmanJohnson

Unilaterally deleted the Gamergate article, which struck me as a pretty clear-cut misuse of the tools, so I promoted him from sysop to regular user. I saw what seemed to be a loose cannon capable of doing more (unfunny) damage, but if I've overstepped, I'll willing to admit it. -Shtrominer (talk) 17:04, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

He's still showing as a sysop. I don't think user rights changes are working properly at the moment. ωεαşεζόίďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
He deleted your talk page, as well as the article. He also blocked you for 3 days. The Gamergate article didn't call for a unilateral deletion: multiple established users expressed interest in its continued existence, a vote would have been appropriate.
It seems like removing his sysop rights was the right idea.--"Shut up, Brx." 18:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
+1 - David Gerard (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
This isn't the first time his sysop rights have been removed either, and the general consensus the first time was that it was the correct course of action. I'm not certain who restored his rights in the interim, but that was probably not a good idea. - Grant (talk) 18:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Good call Shtrominer, deleting an entire article (particularly one that well referenced) with no discussion is valid grounds. Why can't you tell you restored sysops abilities? Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 20:42, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Exiled Encyclopedist, Weaseloid, ZooGuard, WatcherintheDark edit dispute resolution

Edit warring over a string of recent edits. Not bothering to just add a wpa to what would pass as original non plagarized content in a college enlgish course. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 15:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Provide links, I'm not wandering all over the wiki looking for this bullshit. That said, given the general quality of your edits, and your frequent bleating, I'd be inclined to agree with them. PsyGremlinSermā! 16:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
If you want to dispute edits to an article, raise it on the article's talk page. That is the proper place for any discussion of article edits, not the Chicken Coop or the Saloon Bar. You've been told this before, and since you've made no talk page edits within the past three weeks, I can only assume you've taken no notice. See also the guidance at the top of this page: like it or not, you have to try to resolve any issues through actual discussion with people before bringing it here. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
You asked for my comment. I remember being curious about how people were treating you as a new editor obviously interested in contributing; I looked up the number of your edits that got reverted over a short period. It was greater than 50%. You're a good faith editor, even if you need help. I think it's pretty telling that many of the people who shit on you don't do much to help out themselves, but that's even rewarded on RW these days. So what if people need to help you? We've got a few others here who edit in good faith, but also need some assistance, but who actually read and bring what they've learned back to the site. In any event, the well is poisoned. You're not going to get anything you want out of this, but good luck trying. Nutty Roux (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the accurate assessment of the situation Nutty Roux, it's a shame David Gerard and Sophie Wilder don't teach English or else they would have listed an example where I did something wrong. Than like a good teacher, they would have suggested an improvement in a tone inoffensive even to their more religious students. I also assume Sophie (and now David because he's actually on Wikipedia and is now morally responsible having been told) would have banned someone like Ryulong on Wikipedia who called me a fucktard were that kind of language used here. [1] Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 21:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Nutty makes a fair point. Help on edits require people willing to help, so that's a reasonable criticism of those of us who haven't been helpful. Some of us non-helpful folk have lost patience (that includes me right now). That's our responsibility, too. In my opinion, it would also be easier to offer help if EE appeared more open to being helped or, at least, a willingness to be patient, too. Patience ... do they stock it at the grocery store? MarmotHead (talk) 19:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
This has been going on a while; EE has largely exhausted multiple people's patience. He writes bad articles and adds bad content, badly (as in, worse than Proxima). While it is true this is not being ideally welcoming, it is also true that when someone's banned from Wikipedia and tries their luck here instead without changing their style, it may not work out so well - David Gerard (talk) 20:37, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
What seems to be grinding peoples' gears is his unwillingness to listen, learn, and change - as opposed to, say, Smerdis of Tlön, who started off as a square peg but soon adapted. SophieWilderModerator 20:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I thought one of the functions of the chicken coop was for edit wars, much like Wikipedias ANI board, I did jump the gun a bit, even though we all know where this is headed. I brought up the additions to ghost on the talk page, and it appears the black hole information paradox is acceptable now for information theory. I will bring this up on the other talk pages, but WatcherinTheDark has had it pointed out already that I can't plagiarize the part on Umm Nyuluk because I wrote it on Wikipedia.

The well is poisoned, but all's well that ends Wells as they say in Brave New World, quoting Shakespeare as best they know how. Also except Weasaloid everyone has a bad ass authoritarian sounding name I might add, WatcherintheDark not as authoritarian sounding as Zoo Guard. Weasaloids only opposition is over stemc cell research and Not actually a list of magic tricks both of which are sensitive issues as the list of magic tricks will include how to fake ghosts. I'd prefer using Wikipedias explanation of the magic lantern but William Godwin's would suffice, if you insist. It's obvious there's plenty of material suitable for that article, I might add some if any of my edits can stick anymore.

I will have links to relevant articles and discussions shortly. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 15:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Four hours later, where are these links? SophieWilderModerator 18:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
That's approximately the last time I will use approximate times.

At this point the only articles still reverted are God, The devil, Absolute zero, Time travel, Ghost, Eve, Big Bang, Not actually a list of magic tricks Electron and Stem cell research. WatcherintheDark can't tell Snopes from Wikipedia and doesn't realize I originally added the material on the anti gravity of anti-hydrogen relevant to electron, as well as the bit on hwo to fake ghosts using Umm Nyuluk and magic lanterns, as described in lives of the necromancers. I also added the role of black carbon in global warming, but that hasn't been reverted even though it's plagiarizing myself.

As my addition to Meme was accepted like most of my other fiction sections, I would like to at least list Gendo Ikari as an embryonic stem cell user under a fiction section for stem cell research. Metal Gear Solid II, Evangelion, Doctor Who and Star Trek are all well known enough to deserve mentioning if fiction is to be mentioned at all. If all sci-fi outside of novels is unacceptable, than why is there a Star Trek page? Or maybe no sci-fi is acceptable so we should ditch Asimov and edit those parts out of Hubbards page. Also, I added that shit about positrons

Or maybe we shouldn't mention the theory of metabolism was introduced as sci-fi cause fiction is for the 990% of us human beings implied by Zoo Guard Theodore Sturgeon to be shit in every aspect. I'm still on the Wikipedia page for poop, I know a thing or two about it. Also, Watchinginthedark instead of sleeping must make you very tired, perhaps you should hibernate this winter instead of straining your dying eyes looking into computer lights. Maybe that's why you can't read the contributions on Wikipedia.

See Hell, for why I should be able to cite Gene Roddenberry for saying ancient astronauts didn't build the pyramids, Asimov gave him shit but acknowledged T.V. as a valid medium and regarded Gene Roddenberry as being competent enough to give support. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

So, because we have a Star Trek page, you want to stick a load of stuff about sci-fi into other articles? That's doing it the wrong way round. The Star Trek article addresses how the franchise treats missiony ideas. This is the opposite of shoving fiction references in articles. Re Meme, I don't see where your edit was accepted, except that people got tired of fighting you. Also I am concerned that your reasoning for the reversion is based on age prejudice. SophieWilderModerator 19:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
When the personal attacks and the othering (a.k.a. the age prejudice that Sophie just mentioned) come out, it does not bode well for the strength of your argument. My best advice, Exiled Encyclopedist, which you probably will not like, is to take a week off from editing RationalWiki, and see how that feels, see if it brings any insight. Unique pinion (talk) 19:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Excellent point Sophie, ageism is not acceptable; no form of physical discrimination is, only offending the religious by calling them insane like you do with Abraham is socially acceptable here. We should accept the old and the new, the politically red and the politically blue.

Now on the topic of hell, why keep Asimov's opinions? I'm for fairness, not inclusion or exclusion, I think quoting Asimov on Hell is equal to referencing JRPGs on the devil. Also my editing this week will now consist of just preparing a case at the chicken coop. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 20:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

(FUCKING ADA, stop edit conflicting me! Say your piece in one go instead of save, edit, save, edit)That belongs on the talk page, not here. I'm not going to get into the relative merits of Asimov's sentence vs the one it replaced. SophieWilderModerator 20:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm still not seeing what any of this has to do with the Chicken Coop. Trying to discuss changes to fourteen unrelated articles in the same thread seems like a particularly stupid idea. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Well it's about EE's general editing pattern/style. Perhaps we could move it to his talk page. SophieWilderModerator 20:20, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I see now just how deeply multiple edits annoy your red pen, I will oblige by proof reading like I used to do.

I will wait until the third round of edit reversions to go here, not just the second round. Mind if I specify that in the statement of purpose for this place? You said longstanding edit wars, which is rather vaguely worded given everyone has a different opinion on what long is. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 20:33, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Use the talk page for any article you have issues with. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support