RationalWiki:Chicken coop

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

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


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.


[edit] A statist troll

A troll vandalized my talk page including doing a hack job of deleting over a dozen uploaded images, which are specifically uploaded for educational purposes for an educational essay I'm writing. These were public domain images. He just indiscriminately went through and deleted them claiming "no fair use". It's all educational! The constitution is a copywrited work? It's in the public domain! How do I keep this statist troll from vandalizing my educational essay? Obviously he has an authoritarian statist ideological religious zealot agenda to censor the subject matter. After spending like 2 hours on this educational essay I find it vandalized to shreds wtf.LogicMaster777 (talk) 13:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
This is a page where you need to name names & point fingers if you want any action taken. It helps if you also post links to the relevant pages, edits & logs. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 13:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
K sorry still learning how to operate on this site. I am writing an educational essay called "Breakdown of Contemporary American Governmental Religion" on my User page. I uploaded some images to illustrate the essay with photographic evidence to support the assertions I am putting forth in the essay, such as photos of rituals including religious oaths. I put it on my user page so hopefully it would be less likely to be targeted for vandalism. I understand this subject matter gets religious zealots worked up and emotional, but that is not a rational basis to censor the subject matter. Just because the assertions are uncomfortable for religious statists is no reason to censor out the photographic evidence to try to cover up the evidence or censor the information.LogicMaster777 (talk) 13:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/File:Session49_oath.jpg disapeared LogicMaster777 (talk) 13:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
File:Constitution thumb 295 dark gray bg.jpg goneLogicMaster777 (talk) 13:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
The vandal's name: ZooGuard. I am working on this material for an educational essay to be presented through the essay portal when it's more formalized. The pictures deleted were ALL for this essay uploaded ONLY for educational reasons and not uploaded for any commercial or spammy purpose. All or most of them are public domain.LogicMaster777 (talk) 13:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
stop whinging, this page is for more serious issue's. Ghost (talk) 13:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Bro, this guy shredded my User page and over a dozen fair use/public domain uploads. After about two hrs of work I am instead trying to spend my time I should be putting into finishing the essay into trying to resolve the vandalism that basically shredded the previous 2 hours work. LogicMaster777 (talk) 13:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
For no legit reason but just because this guy doesn't like the subject matter and wants to suppress the photographic evidence which supports the theories put forth in the essay in furtherance of an authoritarian agenda of censorship and religiozealous denialism.LogicMaster777 (talk) 13:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Protip: RationalWiki allows embedding images from Wikimedia Commons in the same way Wikipedia does. Instead of uploading random images found with Google and whining when they get deleted, use Commons.--ZooGuard (talk) 13:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
K awesome tip. Thanks. Resolved, I think.LogicMaster777 (talk) 13:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
To be more precise, please use images already uploaded to Commons instead of pulling the same crap there. It will spare commons admins the effort of cleaning up after you.--ZooGuard (talk) 14:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I can't see this guy working out anything but well - David Gerard (talk) 14:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Confirmed, this guy is a moron. Someone should probably swing by Commons to notify them.--ZooGuard (talk) 15:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
No need. They've all been bot-tagged for speedy deletion. WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 15:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
It might be good to note that this alert is present under the current pictures on the page The uploader did not provide sufficient information (a valid and suitable tag) on this media's copyright status. Unless the copyright status is provided, the file could be deleted seven days after the upload (21 December 2014) Wouldn't this be the uploaders responsibility? -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Fair use ≠ What ZooGuard or Emerald City Wanderer personally approve
Fair use = Commentary, Education, or Satire
Which is EXACTLY the purpose for which they were uploaded. Merely making an assertion that they are random "crap" and then insulting me is not a reasoned evidence-based argument which actually proves "randomness". Maybe you do not understand the evidential significance or how it ties into my larger theory. Of course, it was an unfinished work in progress before you attacked it so maybe that is why you don't understand it. Just because you cannot grasp the evidential significance doesn't actually prove there is none. Maybe you should wait for someone to finish presenting their thesis BEFORE you make up your conclusions about the thesis or the evidence upon which it is based and use those presumptive conclusions to rationalize vandalizing the work before it is even finished. But, for me to expect such a thing implies that I presume you to be acting in good faith for the ends of rationalism. I do not presume that and I believe the evidence would preclude such a conclusion.LogicMaster777 (talk) 16:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Cool story bro, I just pointed out what the system message said. I couldn't care less about your verbal diarrhea "proving" that the law is magic because both Harry Potter and judges wear robes. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
K nice strawman. You can't care less about it but you make it your goal for the day to attack it ok. I claim them as fair use, if you claim otherwise, please provide actual evidence other than calling names and personal attacks. Merely saying it is "random" doesn't prove randomness. Merely saying it's infringement doesn't make it thus. Infringement ≠ something you don't like or makes you uncomfortable. By the way the message above was for ZooGuard. You seem pretty legit from what I've seen(Emerald).LogicMaster777 (talk) 16:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Wow, you are just manically all over the place today. I changed my mind though. I think you should be allowed to write it to your fullest ability as can be allowed. I think it would be great evidence that you are too unhinged to be of any value besides unfunny trolling. I wouldn't even need to do anything as your 20 edits for every change draw anyone looking at the recent changes page. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 17:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The Harry Potter stills & promo images are obviously property of Warner Bros Studios, & since you're not even commenting on Harry Potter, I can't see how they would be fair use. You seem to be just using them to demonstrate that wizards wear robes, & I'm sure you can find non-copyrighted or public domain images of wizards instead. I don't know the origins of the rest of the images since you haven't noted what the origins are, which really doesn't help your claim of fair use. Posting them together in a gallery without individual commentary doesn't seem like a very strong fair use rationale if they are indeed copyrighted. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 16:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't exactly help LogicMaster's case (or strengthen his claims of persecution) that it's basically the same objections (copyright violation, incomplete documentation, and lack of fair use rationale) that is being made by both users here and a bot(!) at Commons. Unsurprisingly, LogicMaster doesn't seem to realise this (either)... Thus, it appears that LogicMaster's grasp of the fair use concept is as shaky as his understanding of religion, the state, and reification...ScepticWombat (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Personal tools