RationalWiki talk:Chicken coop/Archive3

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 22 October 2014. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, (new)(back)

[edit] Pommer's Law

How is the picture related to Pommer's Law? –Nazis are bad and I don't like them 00:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

You haven't seen this page in action, have you? Peter mqzp 05:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

[edit] RW/RWF

Has something changed?

Why has a RationalWiki community page been locked by someone acting as a representative of the Rational Media Foundation?

I quote from our own page about RationalWiki:

"RationalWiki is owned by the RationalMedia Foundation (RMF), an incorporated 501(c)(3) nonprofit. The RMF operates the infrastructure that keeps RationalWiki running and holds its associated trademarks and copyrights, but it does not govern the community or any content the community produces." - Emphasis mine.

Has there been a change to the governance of RationalWiki? If so, where can I read when and why this change occurred and to what extent these new powers run to?

Nutty Roux may think the community has no need of an input here, tough shit quite frankly. I have no idea what is going on with RMF/the conduct or lack of effort from its representatives or the troll that's been blocked about this, but now I want to know all about it as a community page for airing grievances is locked to the community because someone decided they'd rather not hear something they don't like. -- Iscariot Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012! 20:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

If you look at the discussions surrounding this issue (and on this page itself), you'll see it's been cited by RMF board members as a legal issue where comments on RW could jeopardise the RMF & hence RW itself, and that lawyer-client privilege was mentioned as a reason for not discussing the issue more openly onsite. I suggest leaving it at that. This page will unlock again in a few hours; it's not that big a deal. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
The Foundation is now a lawyer?
I'm not at all concerned about information being redacted should it be of a libellous nature. subject to certain scrutiny that just prevents that from being a catch-all for removing anything unliked... However Nutty decided to state that the community has no say on this and locked a community page whilst acting as a member of the Foundation.
Now, has it changed that RMF representatives can run roughshod over this wiki at their whim and without oversight?
See I don't think it has, and to go back to the purpose behind this case, I seem to remember us having something about techs altering privileges and issuing blocks a while back. Anyone want to explain why we got our say back then and now we don't because Nutty "says so"? -- Iscariot Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012! 23:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
All users are equal, but some users are more equal than others. Tielec01 (talk) 00:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The slippery slope is, indeed, a fallacy. Sure wish the members of a "critical thinking community" actually thought critically. Seriously. Sterile (talk) 01:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Who's arguing slippery slope? Tielec01 (talk) 01:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Just as a point of interest, the slippery slope fallacy is a bit like the glib statement :correlation does not equal causation"; It's only true in certain situations. A slippery slope fallacy is only committed when the start point and end point aren't logically or empirically related. A slippery slope argument can be legitimate just like correlation can wink and nudge suggestively at causation. In any case, I don't think anyone is making a slippery slope argument...Tielec01 (talk) 01:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
"RMF representatives can run roughshod over this wiki at their whim and without oversight?" Right.
Everyone, board member or not, has an obligation to remove defamatory material. There is nothing else to say. Sterile (talk) 01:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Iscariot is arguing that this is happening right now not as some theoretical end point to a slippery slope. I won't argue in favour of the statement (I didn't make it), but it's not a slippery slope argument. Actually, Iscariot and yourself are in vicious agreement on removing defamation. Tielec01 (talk) 01:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Iscariot is indeed arguing about what is happening now. Iscariot has not looked into the tech's actions and the chronology, but an allegation of tech power abuse certainly needs looking at, as we have done in the past. Iscariot is highly annoyed that a community page has been protected because "Waa, waa, it's late here" and "You don't get to talk about any of this because I fucking say so". Things that are definitely going to cause us legal problems should be removed, and their reinsertion frowned upon until legal advice says otherwise, however, things that could be (or where there's a potential conflict of interest, professional or otherwise) need the public discussion by the mob that is the founding principle of the way we decide things here at RationalWiki.
I quote from the Community Standards, "RationalWiki generally does not protect pages. The community feels that, given the ease with which vandalism can be reverted, protection is unnecessary." We've burnt the page histories before, multiple times, to clear out problem material, but we don't protect community pages on one person's say-so.
Let's also remember that RMF and RationalWiki are two distinct entities with two different forms of governance - hence why I asked at the beginning, without accusing anyone of anything - whether or not that had changed from all the published sources I can find. If Kent Hovind had, or knew someone with, mod powers and whitewashed his article while throwing about legal terms there'd be an understandable 'discussion', especially if he then locked a community page to stifle debate. Just because Nutty's throwing around legalese and RMF like some sort of law enforcement shield doesn't mean I don't want an explanation. And I shall continue to want one until someone shows me where it is written that RMF can summarily take over and enforce whatever it wants, in absolute opposition to what is already out there for us to find/read. -- Iscariot Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012! 02:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
You're not listening. It's not "on a whim" or "whatever it wants" or "because I fucking say so" - it's, in your own words, "Things that are definitely going to cause us legal problems should be removed, and their reinsertion frowned upon until legal advice says otherwise". I don't know why this seldom-used page being locked for a few hours inconvenienced you so much, but it's over now. Let's all get on with our lives. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Three points:

  • There is plenty of explanation here. On multiple pages. Seriously.
  • Insulting someone, even indirectly, and then expecting something from them, while common on RW, is not rhetorically sound. See Phil Plait's "don't be a dick" speech.
  • Griefers want attention. Giving it to them only empowers them. RW folks are notoriously poor at understanding this, but think about what you are doing.

This is far more attention than anyone should have ever given to this. Sterile (talk) 12:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Page locked

Any reason why the page is locked. Acei9 23:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

People not wanting to deal with Brxbrx drama in the middle of their night.--Miekal 23:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
We're now following 'Night Editing' procedures as pioneered by A. Schlafly Esq. -- Iscariot Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012! 23:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Can it maybe be unlocked? Acei9 02:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Only by a mod or a tech. -- Iscariot Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012! 02:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
It's unlocked already. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Ace McWicked, you don't have to weigh in just because you were cited here as part of a past incident. You're not Bloody Mary, you don't have to show up every time someone says your name.--188.138.1.229 (talk) 09:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I'll take that under advisement. Acei9 19:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support