RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive16

JimJast (again)
For ignoring instructions on site and for repeatedly restoring and recreating an article that has been deleted as per discussion on the talk page. The restoration is also an abuse of the sysop rights, which he should never have been given in the first place - yet another sign that they are handed out without thinking these days. Maybe one day somebody will wake up to the fact that we're no longer a tiny community of like-minded individuals and that a little bit more control is necessary. But I digress.

JimJast was given too much leeway at the start with his gravitation nonsense, and now he's really overstaying his welcome with these latest antics. Not to mention his long, rambling screeds to users such as Eira and WaitingforGodot.

JimJast seems to view us as his personal scribble board and sees himself above the rules such as this site does have. He has accounts on CP and ASoK - let him go there and peddle his wares. Cranks we do not need. -- PsyGremlin  11:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree. So what do you suggest? Тy Serious Business Guy 12:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, we can't boot him off just because he's a crank. But he does seem to have been getting pretty bloodyminded.  If he leaves it deleted and gives up, would that be sufficient for now?  And then if he abuses his rights in the future, we'll hold a vote on it.  Seem reasonable?-- 12:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think he even knows how his rights work, but Okay. Тy Please do not click on this 12:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd still go for demotion. Sysopship should be for more than "you've been here for 2 minutes" - what has he contributed towards the site? I also propose his "gravitation" nonsense be removed. Jim isn't is dumb as he plays it - he's already pulling out the "but this is supposed to be 'Rational'wiki on the talkpage of the deleted article.
 * The problem is this is an either/or situation - either Jim can use RW to write whatever crap he wants, or he can't. We can't start deciding after the fact that one article is fine as an essay, but delete the next one he creates. Like I said, he can peddle his wares on ASoK or CP - we shouldn't be hosting cranks. Unless we're prepared to to a side-by-side refutation of his work?  PsyGremlin  12:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out that before the user rights shake up he was not sysopped, despite being here for months. Тy communications wire 13:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

He can start his own (expletive deleted) wiki, we don't need him here. Proxima Centauri (talk) 12:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Except for this, doesn't he mostly confine his nonsense to his essay? Nothing wrong with that, even if it's crazy.  I wrote some big things on vegetarianism, and I don't like the thought that if people here thought being veggie was a crank idea they'd just delete them and kick me out.-- 12:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * (EC - what AD said) The problem is that who gets to decide what crankery is allowed in essayspace and what isn't? The purpose of essayspace is to allow those who don't agree with RW's consensus to express their opinion... unfortunately that means cranks can also post their bullshit and use RW as a free webhost. -- Nx  / talk 12:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There is also the case of him restoring his deleted crap, however. Once again, RW has a sort of/thingy/general process for deleting articles. And if consensus is reached on the talk page, the page can be deleted. This doesn't mean it can be recreated by the original author. JJ is taking pushing his agenda - whatever the hell that may be - too far. -- PsyGremlin  13:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

How about we block him from everything except his user talk page, where he can chunter away to his heart's content in perpetuity. He could even do the odd Gentlemen! if he wants. Real first name and last initialTalk, talk, talk skim my contributions 14:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Bollock him from everything except his talk page, I'm sure Wikia will be happy to host his cosmological insights and to stick advertisements onto the inspired writings. Even if only a handful of users read it Wikia can still make a profit. He doesn't need us as a platform. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've always had a problem with Jast using us as a free hosting service for his material. While he occasionally pokes around on talk pages, it's usually still to discuss his own crazy ideas. I think it's just plain rude to interject yourself into a community and not contribute in any way to the broader picture. I don't see what he brings to the party, really. P-FosterThe French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss. 17:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I gotta say, as long as he's just writing essays, is it really a big deal that we are "hosting" his essays? (I have NO IDEA how much it 'costs' to host 10 or 20 pages worth of drivel, so maybe it is a big deal). But i think you have a very good point about his sysop rights, if he's reactivating pages.  I would say, warn him - if he does it again, block him from sysop for a month or 3 months or whatever, then reinstate him with a "forever" warning if he does it again.--[[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]En attendant Godot  17:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not a question of the dollars, it's more a question of the wiki as a collaborative project. I see liktte of that collaboration, and more concern trolling. P-FosterThe French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss. 18:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * JJ is a crank in the classic monomaniacal sense. At least someone like, say, Maratrean, isn't pushing creationism in evolution-related articles and makes contributions. JJ is just here to peddle his nonsense like he is at the other wikis. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand all of these concerns, but the problem is pretty simple: any rule we make about these things would probably be a bad rule. We can't delete essays we dislike, we can't block people who mostly edit one article or essay, and we can't block people just because we think they're a crank.  Unfortunately, there's just no solution to those things.  All we can do is solve the real problem: his continued recreation of a page that was correctly deleted.  If he persists in doing that, which is wrong, then he should suffer the consequences... otherwise, not much to do about him besides roll your eyes and walk hurriedly by, like any other crazy guy on the subway.-- 21:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I userifyed his article. This is a simple compromise - he gets to keep his article (in User or Essay space), other people don't have to have it in main space. There is really no harm in it existing in User or Essay space, no matter how wrong it is. Probably, if someone did it the first time around, JJ wouldn't have tried restoring it. I think JJ is mistaken about a lot of things, but also harmless, he just needs some training. I don't think taking away his sysop or deleting all his articles is necessary - just, if he creates something consensus oppposes the existence of, userification keeps him happy and keeps others happy too.
 * As an aside, maybe RW should actually have an article about this theory (not JJ's though). I would have thought that "Tired light" theories would be something RW would be interested in? 19:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see much harm in JJ if he's just ranting at the world in essay space or his user talk, he's like a jester that doesn't understand why everyone is laughing at him. When he starts taking away time that other users use to deal with writing, moderating, and other miscellaneous things by spamming insane crap in main-space then it starts to be a problem.  I don't think there should be a rule, but I think sometimes community concerns can be voted on to deal with said problems.  I don't see a problem with limiting him to his user:talk or essay space, especially if he has never really contributed more then hassles to any other space.  If he wants or desires more he can host a domain himself and go nuts.
 * As for the theories, if they are peer reviewed or endorsed by a real major scientific agency they might be worth including to have the information available. The ranting of a single crank is not worth the money and administrative time to me.  Especially if others decide this is a great place to post their insanity to be viewed by the world.  ~ Subsound ~ 21:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, lets move to wrap this up. Nobody really wants to go through the process of banning him because he's a concern troll, even me, who thinks he should be banned for being a concern troll. We send him a note telling him not to restore articles that have been deleted by consensus, and if he does it again, he gets promoted to editor. Any objections to that? P-FosterThe French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss. 21:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope, run with it.-- 23:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree. 04:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Telling the difference between science and pseudoscience is our field, so does anyone know how good is the Faculty of Physics at the University of Warsaw? JimJast has his paper there. Proxima Centauri (talk) 07:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that means anything. My university also gives every student some web space and allows them to host whatever they want. Some people even used to host illegal mp3s and such until they clamped down on that. -- Nx  / talk 07:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't delete, userify
I would like to propose the following approach to JJ's contributions: if they are proposed to be deleted, and the community consensus supports deletion, rather than deleting them, we move them to his user-space, without a redirect. I think that is a compromise which will reduce the likelihood of future conflicts between JJ and other editors. Objections? 06:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Bad idea. Jimmy's use of RW as a free webhost for his bullshit ideas is already a contentious issue. This will only make it worse. -- Nx  / talk 07:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If he has a few user pages with his ideas, what's the harm? It's takes up minimal space and bandwidth. The point is, I think, doing this is likely to reduce further conflict. Isn't avoiding conflict a good goal? I think, if people don't like him, isn't ignoring and neutralizing him a better strategy than trying to stop him? 08:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Two basic RW rules from the help files - Userspace An editor's own space to treat or ignore as they wish. (obscenities/racial/homophobic/nasty entries/redlinks may be censored/amended) and Essayspace A place for individual and original contributions which allow personal Point Of View or more specialised subjects to be edited by specified editor(s) without interference. However, we do request that essays have some tact as these essays will still be associated with RW. JimJast can use these sapces (user space in particular) for his ideas. Some longtime users already have i.e. LX's gibberish about Odin and AD's vegetarianism. Saying JimJast can't sets a new precendent that'd be a ballache to rule on. Aceof Spadessilverbrain.png 08:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Not to mention We welcome contributors, and encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue.  JimJat has done so in creating essays (which can be userspace from now on) and the only thing he shouldn't do is create mainspace pages about his bullshit ideas. Aceof Spadessilverbrain.png 08:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but Lx and AD contribute to the wiki. JimJast doesn't. He just uses us like a free webhost. He does the same at WP, where he abuses his user talk page for that purpose. -- Nx  / talk 08:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * be that as it may we have no rule against writing bullshit essay but not contributing. Aceof Spadessilverbrain.png 08:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The time before the time before this I brought up his total edits by namespace and got shot down. It's a slippery slope between deciding what is contributing and what is not. Тy Complaints 13:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Nx is right. We need roolz. If Jim isn't contributing in, say, at least 10% of his edits, he should be banned. Excessive talk is disfavored at RationalWiki. Contribute or be elsewhere. Godspeed. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Only 10% Occasionaluse? I disagree. I think we should arbitrarily enforce a rule for him where at least 90% of his contributions should be useful. In fact, we could come up with a rule where he has to make at least 90% helpful edits and no more than 10% talkpage edits. Preferably, we would also enforce a curfew on his ass so that we can keep a closer eye on him to make sure he is not liberally engaging in any more deceit. 13:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I certainly haven't noticed JJ doing anything except push his own theories, I feel he should either work constructively to improve RatWiki or look for hosting elsewhere. I don't know enough to say with certainty that JJ's ideas are wrong though stuff that's out of kilter with mainstream scientific thinking to the extent of JJ's stuff is right perhaps 1 time in 10,000. That much is clear even without studying the maths. There's more Evidence for the Big Bang and it's unlikely that JJ is right and all those scientists are wrong, it's not our mission to host stuff that's almost certainly wrong. What about the 1 in 10,000 chance that some of what JJ says is right? There are plenty of other places on the web where he can host his stuff and tell anyone who bothers to read it how wonderful he thinks it all is. Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you really want to get into the issue of enforcing some kind of % contributions rule? I still don't really get what the big problem is.  Yes, he uses RW's space and servers and if he ever links to "us" that's annoying, but you've put up a bannar on his essays - so it's clear he's not being "on mission".  Has anyone ever asked him why he wants to "edit" (essay) here?--[[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]En attendant Godot  14:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)