RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive33

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 8 December 2018. Please do not make edits to this page.

Vicious defamation against TheAmazingAtheist[edit]

This article that you have is viciously defamatory. I suspect that many of you will try to say that it is not. I strongly caution against this verdict. The outcome of this report will set a precedent for any similar articles. How can you even be sure that he wasn't impersonated? Fergelteskaya (talk) 05:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

If he was impersonated he would have issued a cease and desist long ago. Osaka Sun (talk) 05:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid that you don't understand what this page is for. Your issue is something which you need to take up on the appropriate article talk page.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 13:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
So the precedent that you intend to set is that this sort of article is not defamatory? Please think of implecations that this will have, and whether you know anyone who has committed similar behavior who will be affected. Fergelteskaya (talk) 16:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
This page is for the resolution of conflicts between site editors pertaining to their individual behaviour on the website. If you have issues with the content of a particular article, your complaints are more likely to be addressed if you bring them up on the talk page of the article in question. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 16:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
So I take it that you do not consider the article defamatory, and that you intend to set this precedent? Fergelteskaya (talk) 18:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I have no idea if the article is defamatory. Two separate editors have told you that this is not the appropriate place to discuss the article, and have told you where to open such a discussion. If you are unable to follow those sorts of basic instructions, I cannot help you much further. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 19:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough, but for your opnion, you can read the article and tell me if you would like a similar article written about you if you ever made similar comments. I think we can establish there if the article is defamatory. Fergelteskaya (talk) 19:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I am really not interested in vloggers, professional atheists, or what people say about vloggers and professional atheists. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 19:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked Inquisitor Sasha, and revoked his rights[edit]

As someone who believes they are acceptably internet ambiguous, I have taken the personal risk and gotten rid of Sasha/Ehlenstein. He stated, and I quote "Every one of these motherfuckers would deserve for me to report their vile shit to their supervisors and get them fired. I would never do that because that's something that makes you a monster, but they would fucking deserve it." He stated multiple times that he owns weapons. It is unhelpful to continue down this loop of rage and then repetence - either he is full of shit, in which case, whatever, or he honestly knows where some of us live and where we work and has weapons. Either way, the best way to make it stop is to cease engaging with him. This will only happen if they are unable to contribute. Problem solved. Hipocrite 21:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

And then, to prevent retribution, or allegations of oneupmanship, desysoped myself. Please block me. Thanks! Hipocrite 21:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
We don't ban editors for owning firearms, & (AFAIK) Sasha hasn't threatened anyone with a weapon, so that's a straight up red herring.
The talk of doxing other editors or contacting their employers/supervisors was seriously out of line & several of us have told him so. I think he's got the message. See discussions yesterday at User talk:Arcane. Hitting him with an indefinite ban a day later doesn't seem like a useful solution. For one thing, it's just giving him more grievances to stir up shit about - here at RW or on one of his blogs. & Frankly, I'd rather it was here so that we can at least see what he's saying about any of us. For another thing, it's not a functional block anyway, since he's still in the "tech" group and can make himself a sysop again to unblock himself whenever he wants to.
I would have no objection whatsoever to him being removed from the tech group (which can be done by a moderator or another tech) as I don't think he's a helpful or responsible user of these rights. But I don't think a lengthy or indefinit↑e is justified at this point. Unblock or reduce it to a few days is my suggestion. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I can de-tech him if people agree to that. SophieWilderModerator 22:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Weas, he called you pro-rape and a Nazi sympathizer. Chew on that. He's done it to half a dozen people here. I'm lucky that he did it to me without using my name. I hope he doesn't call my supervisor, because that's me and I won't tolerate someone calling me one of the worst things you could possibly call someone. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 22:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
No one cared when PFoster tried to destroy my marriage. No one cared when MarcusCicero called my job and tried to get me fired. No one cared when Human kept sending lewd pictures of himself to my cellphone. No one cared when DogP stalked me when he was in my city for a few days. No one cared when ListenerX tried to sue me for defamation of character. Is it the 4th wall you don't care about or just me? Occasionaluse (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Sophie, two people asked me to do it — I declined because Trent gave him the tech bit and I don't think it's anyone here's business to reverse the Operation Manager's decision. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 22:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
OK then I won't. SophieWilderModerator 23:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

On a serious note IE's behaviour is becoming very creepy. I don't know if IE's persona is just online shtick but it worries me that (s)he ostensibly owns a gun and is talking about violence and power. Perhaps it's a cultural thing (I'm not American) but to me this doesn't seem like a good combination. I wish everyone could find it in themselves to just ignore IE, no matter what inane thing (s)he spouts; eventually (s)he will leave of their own accord. Tielec01 (talk) 00:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Arcane here. I'd just like to say I have spoken with IE via private communications and have advised IE to refrain from being aggressive or confrontational here on RW. I have also advised IE that regardless of the actual context, what is coming across in his posts is causing a lot of discord around here, and in the interests of avoiding further trouble, I have asked IE to tone things down. I don't believe there is any actual reason to doubt his sanity or judgment, and IE wanted me to pass along that they will be laying low and not rock the boat around here if at all possible and would like to apologize for any offensive behavior on his part. Arcane (talk) 06:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
it is unfortunate that he says that every time but does exactly the same on his return. He seems unable learn from his mistakes. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
"Perhaps it's a cultural thing (I'm not American)": Being a Yank must be like being black. Every time some idiot says/does something stupid you go, "Please please please don't be one of us." Justbrowsing (talk) 18:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to restore IE's rights on a provisional basis (one last screwup, then even I won't try to intervene), especially because I have explained very carefully why he has pissed off RW and acted immaturely and confrontational in many situation where he should have, and for the record, IE has no intentions of committing criminal acts regarding Hipocrite or any other RW user. In fact, here's a direct quote on the matter from our conversations on the matter of doxxing:
”Mentioning dox, even if not a threat, is going to be interpreted as a threat just for suggesting it.” —Inquisitor Sasha
Further, I have gotten Inquisitor Sasha to admit that they should not be so hostile or confrontational in disputes, acting on emotions is rash and irresponsible on a wiki devoted to reason, and that I would rescind the block on the explicit provisio he take my advice and not do these sorts of things again. If not, then even I'm not going to intervene next time. Arcane (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Nutty and brx[edit]

WTF is going on? Brx is perma-blocked, the tech support page is semi-protected after some edit skirmishing, and the only reason given is vague portentious hints of seekrit "behind the scenes" bad behavior on brx's part. I'd like to see what the adults have to say about it. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 11:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Him sock voting and going on vandalism and trolling sprees aren't a personal vendetta. My reference to the first is what you're calling a "hint", but you already knew Brx is such a scumbag that he engaged in voter fraud in a moderator election and then had the gall to shake his finger at Nx for doing the same. Brxbrx is the last of an old breed of disruptive sociopath we finally got free of. Sure, I don't have the right to ban someone and you're free to keep unblocking him, but you should consider why you and UHM are the only people who defend him. Nutty Rouxnever mind 14:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Didn't you also, at one point, have proof via server logs that he had actively engaged in vandalism sprees, or am I thinking of someone/something else? Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 18:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
No, I'm not comfortable blaming that on him. He was definitely enjoying it, but I can't conclusively say he participated. Nutty Rouxnever mind 23:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Has brx done any of those things lately? How long does Nutty intend to hold his past performance against him? Unless I'm mistaken, nowadays he is no more annoying or disruptive than the run-of-the-mill casual RW editor. Moderator elections are hardly central to what RW is today, and the UHM account hasn't been active since October of 2012.
Last I looked, RW was still making an effort to be an open wiki. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 19:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
I'll hold it against him until he leaves. Nutty Rouxnever mind 23:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
its quite difficult to defend someone when you don't know what it is they are exactly accused of. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Nutty, if you have definitive proof, that Brx did all this, why don't you take it to the coop and try to ban Brx officially. You might also consider why Brx is constantly unblocked as opposed to for instance Inquisitor Ehrenstein, who was also permabanned without a community vote. --Th. BernhardDas Leben ist ein Prozeß, den man verliert, was man auch tut und wer man auch ist. 15:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Because Trent doesn't want to get involved. Nutty Rouxnever mind 23:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
In general, I'm not a fan of wiki politics, but if airing grievances this way is going to stop the ban/unban war that's been going on for as long as I've been here, perhaps it's not such a bad idea. Regardless of who's right in this situation, I think it's starting to become disruptive to the wiki in general. - Grant (talk) 15:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
The last moderator elections were - what - 18 months ago? And he's banned for it now? In any event perma-bans should be subject to a community vote and not be carried out at the whim of an individual editor.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 20:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
I've been trying to get rid of him since then. And no shit Sherlock. I'm not entitled to continue banning him, but I will. Nutty Rouxnever mind 23:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
So you are deliberately and wilfully ignoring established procedures while pursuing a private vendetta against an individual. Furthermore it is your stated intention to continue doing so. And few people seem to care. I've got to say that this is feeling less like the wiki I signed up for.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 07:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I know both folks involved pretty well at this point. I'm going to try to solve this personally. I will report back to the community momentarily.--ADtalkModerator 21:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Good luck. For the record I defend Brx and will continue to do so. Nutty - I have a huge amount of respect for you and the effort you put into the foundation but goddamn this obsession is boring. Tielec01 (talk) 07:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Kevin Martin[edit]

OK, let's just deal with this once and for all: what are we going to do about the legal trolling from Kevin Martin? It's bad enough that he's been threatening us forever about wanting to sue us, but now he seems to have tipped his hand as far as that goes. I, for one, am sick of seeing this asshole trolling RationalWiki by making legal threats left and right, and think we should permaban him, since he has continued to troll us and, at every opportunity, has refused to engage us in a redress of grievances without making more legal threats. Let's let him put his money where his mouth is or be gone. Thoughts? Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 10:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for 24 hours for legal threats; feel free to reblock as needed - David Gerard (talk) 12:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Discrimination against pedophiles[edit]


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. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.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)

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

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. PsyGremlinSprich! 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. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.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. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.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. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

90% of our sci-fi articles are shit.[edit]

So why is robot not a valid article? If it isn't than why do you have funspace and sci-fi articles at all? Also it's time to remove someones sysops privileges until they prove they deserve them again, decide if it's Zooguard and Weasaloid or me. Please review all of our contributions before making such a permanent decision.

Also I've wasted enough time here; I need to tag out of this match for meat space reasons. Who will be the Daredevil to serve as my attorney and hero? CensoredScribe Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 17:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Robot is still open for discussion. Why not make it more "valid" instead of whingeing and drive-by templating other articles. ('Make it more "valid"' ≠ copying stuff in from WP) (EC) don't slam the door on your way out. Scream!! (talk) 17:25, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Zooguard and Weaseloid are valued contributors of long standing. EE/CS is, shall I say, tone-deaf. I've promoted EE, something which should have happened long ago. Sprocket J Cogswell Talk to Sprocket 18:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
It might be a nice thing to unblock ZooGuard and save him the bother. --Maxus (talk) 18:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
OK, he's likely unblocked himself plenty of times before, but I'm easy. Done. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:27, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Move that this case be marked as "frivolous" and archived[edit]


  1. Scream!! (talk) 19:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  2. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 19:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  3. --Miekal 20:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  4. Marlow (talk) 20:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


Nutty Roux (talk) 23:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


MadmanJohnson doxxing[edit]

So MadmanJohnson has been making a total ass of himself in regards to me over the past week on this website. Not only has he pointed people to my dox and gleefully enjoyed people's reactions to it but he's using /m/ and Gamergate's nickname for me and as the thread above shows he's basically culled everything from my ED page to make a baseless complaint about me. Seeing as it's clear to me that it's against the rules for me to block him for being a funless and tasteless cockbag doing nothing but being an ass to me, is the chicken coop the right place to officially get him to lay off?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. I just blocked MadmanJohnson for a week for doxxing. Let us proceed to discuss this, whether he should be unblocked or stay blocked - David Gerard (talk) 11:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Good Lord, not a peep of disagreement in ten hours? That's a first for RW ... - David Gerard (talk) 21:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I would have thought doxxing shouldn't be taken lightly - the reasoning behind it can't be anything but malicious. It's something the site shouldn't tolerate. I'd be in favour of a permanent blocking. We don't need that shit here. PsyGremlinSprich! 21:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I've certainly got no personal interest in unbanning users who come to my talk page unprovoked and drop outside drama for no apparent reason. I don't know if they were trying to convince me of some great character flaw of Ryulong or something, but it definitely rises to the definition of both doxxing and malicious slander. Ikanreed (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
First time I've ever heard about this. I think the links may have changed or something -- was there a doxx on the page that MadmanJohnson was pointing to? I didn't see one aside from a name and e-mail address as of this post (and now I think I need to dip my phone in bleach or something). If the doxxing accusation turns out to be legit, then I fully agree with Psy and Ikanreed here. It's serious business. Edit: So I'm not crazy -- Weaseloid also indicating that they're not seeing doxxing. Noir LeSable (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree with the permanent ban. I can't see anything but Madman attempting IRL harm for Ryu. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg X-Men! Welcome... TO DIE!!! 23:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Does the doxxing in this case consist of anything other than mentioning that there is an ED page about Ryulong? I think that's probably been mentioned on RW before, plus it's mentioned in the Reddit link which was under discussion in the thread where Johnson posted that comment. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 16:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

And repeatedly posting info from it, claiming to be exposing Ryulong's evil ways - David Gerard (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
So not really doxxing. It doesn't look like an uncontroversial case, & should be voted on before any long-term ban. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Whatever you want to call it it has no place here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
It's unnecessary but it's not really doxxing, unless we want to stretch the meaning of that word to breaking point. I think the block Ryulong gave to Madman Johnson was unjustified but given that noone appears to really care that much about him abusing his sysop rights I'm loathe to pick up the argument (again). Tielec01 (talk) 04:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Using an ED page with doxx to smear and harass another RW user is something that deserves a block. Typhoon (talk) 06:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Tielec01 I never blocked him.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Apologies Ryulong you are correct it was DG who blocked him. It goes without saying I still think what Madman did was not super serious, but definitely not the right thing to do. A permanent ban would be as silly an over reaction as anything I've seen CP do.Tielec01 (talk) 08:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
That would be an apt comparison, if CP blocked people, after discussion, for revealing personal details for the purpose of smearing another person. CP blocks people immediately, without discussion, for almost anything other than sycophantic obedience. I'd be fine, at the least, with promoting MadmanJohnson to not autopatrolled and not sysop, so that we can review all of his edits to cut down on doxxing; at the most, a block. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 16:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
He's already not a sysop after previous fuckwittery. Running out of downgrades here - David Gerard (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, so the current sitatuion seems fine. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 17:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not seeing how MMJ was "revealing personal details" at all. The comments he posted, whether accurate or not, were about Ryulong's activities on Wikipedia, Twitter, etc., not his name or location or any IRL stuff. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
He's directing people to look at a website that is shitting on my life.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I have to agree with Weaseloid. I was under the impression that he was actively revealing or pointing somewhere that was revealing your personal information (hence my earlier skepticism). There's a very sharp difference between either having dirty laundry aired (if true)/your name slandered (if false) and doxxing. Noir LeSable (talk) 21:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I have no dog in this fight, and will vote "Goat" in any vote that may arise from this debate, but it's clear that the idea of a permaban is not unconditionally accepted by a majority of voices in the debate. Given that, I shall unblock Johnson until the community arrives at a consensus as to how to proceed. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 22:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)