RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive34

PsyGremlin et al vs. Mongoose et al

Laurelai

This conversation was moved from User_talk:Laurelai |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Kyubey stares into your soul. /人◕‿‿◕人\\} 15:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

As was said to Femilisk - one edit, reverted, does not a sysop make. They don't need a bucket and mop to work on the SJ project. Once they've proven themselves, they can be promoted. Get it? PsyGremlin^Fale! 13:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Im going to explain this once. Slowly. I got sysop the first day. Before my first edit. Just for saying i was here to contribute. Its handed out like candy. Its even in the sysop guide. You have no authoritative right to make demands of me or any other user. If you have an issue, thats what talk pages are *for*. Discuss it and use your words like a grown up. --Laurelai (talk) 13:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Guess what - your sysopship was therefore handed out contrary to the spirit of the wiki, and I am now going to investigate and see what happened and take you and whoever sysopped you to the Chicken Coop. This isn't FB, where the admins run around like little facsists. People are not sysopped just because we want them to be. End of story. PsyGremlin^Fale! 14:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Even if Laurelai was made sysop with zero proving herself through edits, since then she has made some useful edits, so has certainly proven herself for demotion now. Nullahnung (talk) 14:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

*laps up your tears* --Laurelai (talk) 14:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, they pretty much always have been. I've always opped people as long as I think they're not actually insane. There's really very little a MediaWiki sysop can do to break things - David Gerard (talk) 14:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like Psygremlin has a case of the jimmy rustles.--Laurelai (talk) 14:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I wasn't aware I was dealing with a kindergartener. I would have moderated my language otherwise. PsyGremlin^Fale! 14:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

And David, how many people have you sysopped after 0 or 1 edits? Since when is that the standard on the wiki? PsyGremlin^Fale! 14:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I typically wait for a few. But the standard is "are they likely to do fucked-up things?" Is there evidence this is happening? Can you show that this claimed problem is, actively being a problem in practice, rather than hypothetically? (Wearing my moderator hat here.) - David Gerard (talk) 14:11, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

IIRC sysopped this user because she expressed something about someone else on the wiki doxxing her or something like that. I forget the exact circumstances, but it seemed like a reasonable move at the time. And what the hell are "jimmy rustles"? Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 14:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

basically it means his ego got bruised and hes throwing a tantrum. --Laurelai (talk) 14:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Is there an etymology? Was there an actual "Jimmy"? Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 14:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I have no clue why it caught on in the form it has, but its from a child's boxed snack. Has a gorilla on it. --Revolverman (talk) 14:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

(EC*5... FUCKING FIVE)It's a mutation from the phrase "having one's jimmies rustled", which I understand is fairly common nowadays (the phrase, I mean, not this mutation). Nullahnung (talk) 14:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

"are they likely to do fucked-up things?" - given that Mongoose's response to this has been to post troll comments, that answer is now self-explanatory. And FV- nobody is doxxing anybody on the wiki. And how exactly would sysopping them change that?

And since when does making the wiki run properly have anything to do with ego? You need to get off your high horse. Or is that high chair, given your childish comments. Do you always get your knickers in a twist when you don't get your way? PsyGremlin^Fale! 14:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

And Fv - it's a 4chan meme. Which says a lot about the people who use it, really. PsyGremlin^Fale! 14:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

PsyGremlin, cry more. Your tears sustain me.--Laurelai (talk) 14:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

That Really Rustled My Jimmies afaik it means "that really irritated me". ·Femilisk^♥ 14:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Tch, this is RATIONALwiki! We expect much higher standards of research than that. It's actually from FunnyJunk. - David Gerard (talk) 14:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Drink! :D --Laurelai (talk) 14:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

oh hello, somebody fucked up - why is Mongoose signing lauralei's name to a post? Looks like we're dealing with a sockpuppet here. PsyGremlin^Fale! 14:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh hello, you are full of shit. I edited my own comment to add my signature. Bye stupid. --Laurelai (talk) 14:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't see Mongoose's name anywhere in that Diff Psy. --Revolverman (talk) 14:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Mongoose is not Laurelai: I am talking to both right now on chat. ·Femilisk^♥ 14:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

My bad - I mistook the edit summary for the author. I apologise for that. Shit happens. PsyGremlin^Fale! 14:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

You cant read a diff file and you cant spell my name right half the time and yet you wonder why people ignore you when you bark orders. --Laurelai (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

"Apology accepted, PsyGremlin, don't fuck up again." Common decency too much to expect from LoopyLoo, I guess. PsyGremlin^Fale! 14:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Except I do not accept your apology. You are clearly acting in bad faith. I dont forgive you. Bye. --Laurelai (talk) 14:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

And besides, Laurelai has much better hair than I do. Here's a rundown of what has occurred thus far. Pedant gets jimmies rustled. Pedant makes pedantic comment. Target of pedantic comment responds in kind, and really rustles pedant's jimmies. Pedant then makes argumentum ad 4chan and argumentum ad sock with absolutely no evidence to support it. Pedant then tries to lick wounds and make nice after acting in bad faith. Have I missed anything?Mongoose (talk) 14:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Besides the fact that you've only posted troll nonsense and still wonder why you're not a sysop? Let's talk bad faith for a moment. You get promoted after one edit, which was reverted, and your response has been to make childish comments. You see where this is going wrong, right? There was no bad faith on my part - outside of your twisted little persecution fantasies. So get over it. PsyGremlin^Fale! 14:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Who said anything about me being concerned about not being a sysop? You have behaved in a childish manner. I therefore assumed I was dealing with a child, and responded in kind. I save the persecution fantasies to people like you. If you're going to behave badly, don't be surprised when you are treated with the disrespect you deserve. I could be happily gnoming, but I have your drama to take up my time.Mongoose (talk) 15:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Guys, stop. Seriously. Please. This is going nowhere, and its already across 3 talk pages. --Revolverman (talk) 14:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I can't help it if the resident drama queens are sore, because they didn't get their way, and chose to blow it totally out of proportion. All the more tears for me to bathe in. PsyGremlin^Fale! 14:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Again, projection much? Can you say Gulag time? (talk) 15:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Femilisk

This conversation was moved from User_talk:Femilisk |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{"Ritsuko, the truth is[...]" "Huh. You liar"} 15:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but 1 edit, later reverted, does not a sysop make. PsyGremlin^Fale! 13:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

They were having trouble wikignoming and PMed me on FB. Either way, I'm sure they are able to survive without superpowers. So no prob. ·Femilisk^♥ 13:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

If Lauralee deliberately ignores comments made in the edit summary - twice, then it's clear action must be taken. Especially when it's somebody who herself is new to the wiki. PsyGremlin^Fale! 13:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

So, Psygremlin, that Blunt Knives thing, how's that working out for you? Feeling a bit... short?Mongoose (talk) 14:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Could you not be so heavy-handed? I thought the criteria for sysop were near zero? I get that a person with one edit complaining about problems with captcha is not sysop-worthy! But Laurelai is a good RWian. Her contributions are good. She has been doing stuff. ·Femilisk^♥ 13:58, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Because for years we have had a system that has worked very well and it's not going to be broken, just because your friends want to join the wiki. The fact that lauralee was made a sysop with out an edit is another example of this favouritism. Given that you've sysopped somebody who doesn't even know how to sign their posts speaks volumes.

And Mongoose, the fact that you bring that up, in a totally unrelated subject, speaks volumes. So well done there. PsyGremlin^Fale! 14:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Hush little Gremlin, don't say a word, Mongoose gonna buy you a mocking cobra...Mongoose (talk) 14:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Let not provoke people please? There's enough that on this Wiki already. --Revolverman (talk) 14:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anyone who engages in pedantry and capriciousness has much of a right to complain, but if it suits my whim, I will try to behave. I do apologize for the mocking cobra comment, though, on the grounds it was lame.Mongoose (talk) 14:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I guess. --Revolverman (talk) 14:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, though, I'll try to behave. No promises.Mongoose (talk) 14:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The criteria for sysop have always been pretty much zero. I've always opped people as long as I think they're not actually insane. There's really very little a MediaWiki sysop can do to break things. I have little to no idea what historical basis Psy is working from here - David Gerard (talk) 14:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The basis of a personal vendetta? Look, I wasn't the one that sysoped Laurelai when she joined. Is that what bothers you? Otherwise, I accepted I was wrong with helping somebody who couldn't get past the captcha - I accepted that off the bat. ·Femilisk^♥ 14:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I dont think you were wrong though. --Laurelai (talk) 14:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

"Getting past the captcha" requires only "autopatrolled", not sysop powers.--ZooGuard (talk) 14:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

You can take your "personal vendetta" persecution complex and shove it. The fact remains, that you yourself were only sysopped after making a number of edits, you've been here long enough to know how it works and yet, somehow you see fit to promote people with none, or 1 edit. It doesn't work that way. And again, David, you say teh criteria are zero - which is utter bullshit. How many editors have you promoted immediately upon joining, or after 1 edit?

And given how Mongoose is now trolling, I can't see how they could be considered as a sysop. PsyGremlin^Fale! 14:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

So you are saying you want me and Laurelai off the wiki because other people promoted us to sysop? ·Femilisk^♥ 14:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Really, where did I say that? Quote me, please. No, what I said is I want the normal convention of demoting people to be followed and not have people promoting people left, right and center just because they can. PsyGremlin^Fale! 14:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

So you want to send me to chicken coop because somebody that I sysoped made a troll-like comment? ·Femilisk^♥ 14:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "The criteria for sysop" have been "not obviously a vandal, as evidenced by their edits". The usual practice is to let people make at least a dozen edits to figure out what they are about. Sysopping someone after a single edit rubs me the wrong way too, and sysopping someone because of off-wiki communication due to pledged allegiance to a certain project rubs me the wrong way really badly. For the people with short or non-existent memories, RW has had meltdowns about user rights in the past, and it had nothing to do with gender or social justice issues.--ZooGuard (talk) 14:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

ZooGuard, I fully accepted I was wrong to sysop somebody with only one edit, or no edits. My first comment on this thread. The rest has not been me. It's been pettiness from off-site drama, indeed. One might be tempted to say this was merely an excuse to find a reason to tell me off. But maybe it just was because I didn't accept I was wrong from the start oh wait I did! ·Femilisk^♥ 14:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh here we go - let's see. Yes, you admitted you were wrong. And then I posted in reply to your edit summary when you demoted LL, and from there we were on to Mongoose trolling, you suddenly claiming it was about a "personal vendetta," so to say "the rest has not been me" is a bit of a lie, actually. If anything, you three have blown this totally out of proportion. PsyGremlin^Fale! 14:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

"If anything you three have blown this totally out of proportion" Projection much? Can you say Gulag time? (talk) 15:11, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

"I have little to no idea what historical basis Psy is working from here" ·Femilisk^♥ 14:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

"The basis of a personal vendetta? Look, I wasn't the one that sysoped Laurelai when she joined. Is that what bothers you?" Denying reality now, or what? But hey, whatever floats your boat. PsyGremlin^Fale! 14:58, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I do not care enough to continue this. You have got your way, so why are you? ·Femilisk^♥ 15:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Back on track

Psy, I went through the archives, since you were curious about who sysopped Laurelai and why. I sysopped Laurelai after reading this comment about harassment. No, I didn't do too much to investigate the claim, because, hey, assume good faith. No doubt it was a quick sysopping, but, besides the one mistake of opping Mongoose, she's obviously a sysop-worthy editor, so I stand by it. And I'm willing to be she won't prematurely sysop anyone again, because she admitted it was a mistake. So, how about everyone put their jimmies back in their pockets where the tears won't ruin them, and we consider this controversy resolved. Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 15:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I was the one who harrassed Laurelai, and the cause for her sysopping. I would normally apologize, given that I was shitfaced at the time (that imported German dark lager was on sale! It even had the labels in German!), but I have interacted with her way back on Reddit and she's not exactly the type to accept apologies. But anyway, I apologize profoundly for that incident. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{So you see, we have to kill animals, or else they'll die.} 15:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Not that I disagree with you, but the claim is that I sysoped prematurely, not Laurelai. ·Femilisk^♥

PS: that I sysoped Mongoose that is. ·Femilisk^♥ 15:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The biggest issue here is not so much that Mongoose was sysopped prematurely, and even Femilisk admitted that it was a mistake. It's that LauraLei, who herself has been here 5 minutes, took it upon herself to then repeatedly re-sysop Mongoose, despite requests not to, and then became abusive from the start. This is not behaviour conducive to working well on the wiki. Mongoose hasn't helped their own cause, by posting nothing but trollish comments, again undermining the suitability for adminship. PsyGremlin^Fale! 15:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

And looking at LL's "harassment" link - really? "A person who has all the inherent lovability, charm and importance of an excised genital wart has called me "pond scum"!" was grounds for sysopship, given that her first comment was "And now my opinion of you has been reduced to pond scum." Clearly you don't get to throw names around, then bleat about being harassed, when somebody calls you names back. --PsyGremlin^Fale! 15:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

EC. My bad. I started following the chain on Laurelai's talk page, so that's where I thought the problem started. Anyway, Psy made noises about taking the guy who sysopped Laurelai to the Coop, so might as well get that out there. So you swear on a Bible or a Torah or a copy of the Grundrisse or stack of Archie comics or whatever you hold dearly and promise not to commit the egregious crime of sysopping someone prematurely ever ever ever again, and Raysenn promises not to drink and edit and drag stuff from another website over here and we can all move on. Yes? Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 15:11, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I have already done that at least twice above. ·Femilisk^♥ 15:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Awesome. Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 15:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

@ Psy. Mongoose will not be a sysop anytime soon, so let's leave that aside. Yup, people are prone to taking an abusive and insulting tone. We can all wish they wouldn't, and probably the best way to make sure they don't is to not engage with them when they do, and/or to lead by example and not do it ourselves. God grant me the strength to actually live that out. Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 15:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

If the only problem is that somebody was abusive, why did this need to get moved to the coop? ·Femilisk^♥ 15:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

And I would argue that my allegedly abusive behavior was self-defense. Gremlin threw an elbow. I responded in kind, and he completely flipped out.Mongoose (talk) 15:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Raysenn is biased

Hes the one who linked to doxxing information on my userpage, why does he think he has the right to get in the middle of this? --Laurelai (talk) 15:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

a) I never got in the middle of this. I only moved the discussion here. b) I never posted personal information; I merely commented on how you doxxed someone and your terrible moderation back on Reddit. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Good job guys. You were so busy karate fighting that you let Jesus escape.} 15:11, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

No you linked an encyclopedia dramatica article that *has personal information about me*. You literally did that. That was you. Seriously. And no i dont accept any kind of apology from you. Too little, too late. Go away.--Laurelai (talk) 15:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica was down at the time, dummy. I linked to /r/SubredditDrama, which can't have personal information as per Reddit's most strictly applied rule. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{The rose! The rose! It's in my eyes!} 15:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

What does it actually matter what you specifically linked to? What was the point of assuming who she was and "exposing" her? ·Femilisk^♥ 15:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Is this a case for the Coop, or are you folks just having an argument that you can have on each others' talk pages? If it's the former, great. If it's the latter, I will archive this thread as it's not a Coop case. Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 15:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

What is the argument? To me it seems it's just people wanting to bring some talk page stuff to the coop... ·Femilisk^♥ 15:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Im showing the person who brought this here has a preexisting bias and acted on it, and not because of any real violation deserving to be here.--Laurelai (talk) 15:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

They keep saying they have a preexisting bias. So not even that is up for debate! ;) ·Femilisk^♥ 15:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Third party case

This appears to have been copied here by Raysenn, who is not actually a party in any way (and, as noted above, may have been stoking this drama previously). Psy, are you hereby bringing this as a case as such, or is this premature? - David Gerard (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC) (mod hat on)

I'm not bringing this up as a case at all, as as far as I'm concerned, it's been resolved, despite much toys-out-of-cot-throwing by certain parties. Just as long as people are clear just how the handing out of buckets and mops work, I'm happy. Sadly, some people felt the need to respond with attitude and name-calling, but hey! Welcome to the internet. PsyGremlin^Fale! 15:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't get it. I have accepted it was a premature demotion. Psy accepts I accepted. So why are we here? It's like fractal drama. ·Femilisk^♥ 15:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Ray is looking for witches to burn. --Laurelai (talk) 15:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

It would be awesome if there was an actual point to debate though. ·Femilisk^♥ 15:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Removing Meikals sysops and moderator privileges.

Just look at his talk page and see how many complaints are lodged against him despite not editing that frequently. He admitted on my talk page he didn't even bother to read the page The Nine Unknown before deleting it. He mostly uses talk pages to annoy the shit out of people. If pestering someone on their talk page isn't a punishable offense I will begrudgingly start doing the same to him by asking inane questions and calling him names. Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 20:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I can only imagine the legions of people about to swoop in and vote keep on that article, if only i hadn't snowballed it when the only keep vote was from its creator--Miekal 20:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't care about that article, it was correct to delete it. But by the same arguement you should delete the Jack Parsons article. I'm concerned theirs other articles you don't bother to read, which I can't look up because that's not shown on your history. Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 20:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Stop whining. --Marlow (talk) 20:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

There is no case here. Go back to sniping on each others' talk pages and leave the grown-ups alone. Father Vivian O'Blivion talk 20:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Reckless Noise Symphony

Reckless Noise Symphony, a tech, just put me in sysoprevoke, because he doesn't believe I'm sysop material. At the heart of this dispute is a disagreement between the two of us about libelous content on RationalWiki. Now, what I've actually done so far is revert Former Editor (aka Nutty Roux) twice on Talk:Kevin Martin. After David Gerard told me to stop, I stopped. What followed was basically a lot of arguing. Much arguing, no action- at least on my part. Eventually, Reckless Noise Symphony once more decided I shouldn't be a sysop, and went so far as to place me in sysoprevoke. Later, he was coaxed into taking me out of sysoprevoke. Today, he decided again to place me in sysoprevoke, because I continue to not agree with him. He believes I should not be a sysop on this basis.

I believe that he is misusing his tech powers. He has misused his tech powers before: when Ace McWicked moderator powers were removed by Weaseloid [1] because he had removed Blue's moderator powers and tried desysopping Nx and some other users, RNS restored Ace's moderator powers,[2] who then went on to stage a "coup" of sorts, removing everybody's moderator powers but his own- See October 20

On this basis, it seems to me that Reckless Noise Symphony is abusing his tech powers, and that whether or not he should have them needs to be re-evaluated.--"Shut up, Brx." 04:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Piss off Brx, raising something that happened in 2012? STFU GTFO. Aceⁱ⁹ 19:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The RationalWiki Chicken Coop has no authority over this matter, for the reasons I am about to state. The issue started when somebody republished raw information on talk:Kevin Martin that was libelous, even if it was critical. This is still classified as libelous information under the law, and the RationalMedia Foundation could be found liable for publishing it for reasons that, being as they are under the RMF's attorney-client privlege, nobody wants to specify on RationalWiki. However, numerous current and former RMF trustees have agreed that the information is legally threatening to the RMF and, as such, wanted it removed. Nutty Roux originally removed the content, and was edit warred by Brxbrx over it. At that point, others (including myself, Sterile, and David Gerard, all who are or have been intimately involved in RationalMedia Foundation business) affirmed that there was a good reason the content was removed. However, Brxbrx continued to war with us over it for some stupid, unknown, selfish reason. As a result, I originally removed his sysop rights and brought it before the Moderators, because he is arguing that content that is legally liable for the RMF to host was good content that we should host. I was warred with by User:Tielec01, and as such felt it was better to abuse my tech authority than to leave this website in a position to be sued. After Brxbrx pretended to back down, I stopped going on the offensive and allowed his rights to be restored. However, after he didn't understand Nutty's legal reasoning (albeit, it was vague], he continued to insist he was right. I gave him a link to partial reasoning as to why he was wrong (again, respecting the RMF's legal privlege], and he went away for a few days, so I didn't do anything more. Then, he came back today and continued to troll about the legal issues that he knows shit about but is trying to question. In my opinion, this is toxic behavior which puts the entire Wiki at risk. Given previous wars with Tielec and co., I desysopped him and added him to the "revoked" group not because I wanted to abuse my authority, but because it was in the best interests of the Wiki to do so, and given the obsolescence of the Moderators combined with prior experience, I felt I had no other choice. Brxbrx is a toxic troll hell-bent on seeing RationalWiki sued into oblivion. Don't let him fool you into thinking otherwise. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 05:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

"Brxbrx is a toxic troll hell-bent on seeing RationalWiki sued into oblivion." Now that is the kind of hard-hitting testimony this case needs. Wow, that settles it. User:Reckless Noise Symphony has unveiled my master plan. I'm trying to get the wiki "sued into oblivion." Yup. Years of editing, creating articles, taking part in discussions with the community on the WIGOs, in the Saloon Bar, all this was to end in the culmination of the RationalMedia Foundation get sued into oblivion.

Why such perfidy? Weren't you listening, it's because I'm a toxic troll! The worst kind of troll! All that trying to improve articles, making new ones, trying to help other editors, it's all a part of the plan, and don't you let me fool you into thinking otherwise. That just done make sense, doesn't it?--"Shut up, Brx." 06:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Further Update

RNS has, further to the above, vandal binned, banned and removed auto-patrolled user rights from Brx. There is no doubt RNS has good intentions, but if I can be excused a little poetic licence (and given the bombastic language above I feel I should be), the road to hell is paved with god intentions. RNS has admitted that he is abusing his power as a tech - this power is meant to be for updating the filter or other tech powers, not over-riding the wishes of his fellow sysops. Brx poses no imminent danger to the wiki except the unspecified toxic troll hell-bent on seeing RationalWiki sued into oblivion. which speaks more to RNS's hatred of Brx than any actual reason to be banned or de-sysopped. The edit-warring that Brx engaged in was wrong and he has not repeated that behaviour. His only crime is to ask RNS to justify his position - which RNS finds so affronting that he has deemed it neccessary to abuse his powers so as not to have to deal with it. RNS has done good work on wiki, for the spam filter and for the board, I don't think he should lose his tech rights but he should be reminded that abusing his tech powers is wrong no matter how confident he is that his opinion over-rides all others. In the meantime I can't do much, as I am not a tech myself, so I will unban Brx so he is at least allowed to comment on RNS's accusations. Tielec01 (talk) 05:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Apologies RNS did not remove auto-patrolled user rights as I originally said above. Tielec01 (talk) 05:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

There is NO reason to engage Brxbrx in a debate. He is hell bent on us divulging things that put the RMF in a bad legal position. I won't respond to what he wants for that very reason, and also because I am not a representative of the RMF, just acting in its interests. He has given zero reason why the RMF divulging legally hazardous information is of any importance to him, other than that RNS and Nutty Roux are apparently bad people who he doesn't trust. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 06:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay... Unidentified meteorology website owner on whom we have an article accuses an equally unidentified critic of being a sex offender, likely as retaliation for being a critic, since the unidentified meteorology website owner on whom we have an article has a history of making vile personal attacks against any who oppose him. This was recorded on RationalWiki, until RNS saw fit to remove it, because it is libelous. Forgive my vague identifiers, RNS seems eager for any excuse to revert and oversight me, so if I name names, he'll claim we'll get sued for it, and another edit war will ensue.

RNS refuses to specify what exactly is libelous about the content

• That we recorded Unidentified meteorology website owner on whom we have an article's absurd accusation, and that we are at risk of said website owner suing us because we linked to his site where he clearly made the claim? Hopefully that's not it, because that would mean anything we post on RationalWiki critical of an individual along with evidence is grounds for a lawsuit
• That we recorded the claim against the unidentified critic, in the context that it was preposterous and unjustified, and that the unidentified critic might sue us for this? There's no reason to believe the unidentified critic would do that, and besides, libel implies either malice or reckless disregard for the truth- which is not the case here.

So what is the specific issue, RNS? Use vague identifiers if you must, but right now you are proving nothing. You are backing up nothing. You are just setting fire to everything, shooting at whatever moves.

Identify the issue.--"Shut up, Brx." 06:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe libel and defamation law are far more complex and difficult quagmires than you seem to think, even in a country that's as liberal on the subject as the U.S. is. That is all I'll say on this matter. - Grant (talk) 06:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Summation

No community comment is necessary or appropriate here. Despite all of Brxbrx's extensive legal training, and solid record of exercising good judgment and acting in the best of all possible faith in the best possible interest of others above himself, protecting the legal interests of the RMF is not a matter of debate between Brxbrx and the corporation that owns the site Brxbrx has been given the revokable license on which to post. As they say, "nothing to see here, move along." Nutty Roux (talk) 06:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

This coop is not about Brx, and I'd hate for a clear cut case of a user abusing their tech powers to become muddied in a debate about the interaction between officers of the RMF, defamation and the wiki. Reckless Noise Symphony, as he has admitted, abused his tech powers to try and get rid of Brx. He hasn't denied the charge, only stating that he thought it was necessary to do so because Brx was not fit to be a sysop. The community can't accept a person unilaterally abusing their powers because they want to bully a user off the site - no matter how annoying that user may be. Keep in mind that the only reason we have principles is to live up to them when it is difficult to do so. No-one minds standing up for the cool, popular and productive members of the wiki - and we tend to turn a blind eye when they do things that are anti-thetical to community standards. However, we have community standards so that someone annoying, unproductive or lame is judged by the same standards as all other users. Imagine if Brx had abused tech powers in the way that RNS had - what would be your reaction?

Please start another discussion about Brx's actions elsewhere if you want to talk about that. Tielec01 (talk) 08:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

"He hasn't denied the charge, only stating that he thought it was necessary to do so because Brx was not fit to be a sysop." No, that is completely wrong. I did so because Brxbrx was prodding numerous times for information that, if divulged, puts the RMF in a legally compromising position. Why is he doing so? Fuck if I know, but it is absolutely harmful to the RMF and to this site. Far more harmful than an alleged abuse of powers that, I might add, wouldn't have happened if you hadn't stuck your nose where it didn't belong and war me over this very issue. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 08:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you explain to me why your nose belongs there and mine doesn't? Are you smarter than me? Are you a higher class of user than me? Tielec01 (talk) 08:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I am a former officer and member of the RMF trustees. As such, I have a knack for constitutes legally harmful behavior on this website. Brxbrx's fault in this is in prodding for information he's not privileged to have, information that could put the RMF in a legally harmful position. And, after being warned by numerous people, continuing to press that issue, even though he received plenty of warning that it was a terrible idea and acting in bad faith. I even gave him some legal literature to read that might have (but clearly, since he's an idiot, didn't) given him a clue. As such, he proved he was 1) trolling and 2) wanting to put the RMF in a legally bad spot. Therefore, for the sake of this site, I took matters into my own hands. Your move. Why, other than being just as big of a fuckwit troll as Brx, are you interfering in the protection of the RMF's and, by association, RationalWiki's legal interests? Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 08:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

And for the record, even Wikipedia has a guideline about unilateral actions for the preservation of the Wikimedia Foundation. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 08:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't realise you had a knack why didn't you say so earlier? Of course, as everyone can see neither Brx or I are trolls, and you have no excuse for your abuse other than that you have, quite frankly, delusional beliefs about him (and now me too). He simply asked you to justify your position - which you took as a bannable offense. Your accusations about me wanting to harm the RMF's interests is laughable and I have donated time and money to the foundation - it speaks volumes that you are stooping to this level instead of just apologising and promising not to abuse your powers again. Tielec01 (talk) 08:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I will apologize just as soon as you and Brxbrx apologize for trying (whether consciously or not) to put the RMF in a legally compromising position. I won't hold my breath until then. And, no, he didn't ask me to justify my position. I did that numerous times. What he did was JAQing off about something that he knew damn well was done with the best interests of RationalWiki in mind, and he did so in such a legally harmful way after being told numerous times not to that it most certainly constituted some time off for him. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 08:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you a representative of the RMF? Have they told you that I put them in a legally compromising position? Tielec01 (talk) 08:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Sterile and Nutty Roux telling you exactly that aren't good enough for you? Do you even know who constitutes the RMF Board of Trustees? Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

They haven't told me that; only you have. Tielec01 (talk) 09:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh my goodness, you really don't know what you're talking about! Clearly, you don't even know how this whole thing started (after Brxbrx was warned by Nutty, David Gerard, and Sterile about what he was doing and that it would lead to him being blocked), and as such, you are just wasting my time by pursuing this bogus chicken coop war! Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

(EC x 324) Tielec, stop. Stand back and look at the big picture. RNS is trying to protect RW from a potential lawsuit. Are you arguing against this? Sophie^Wilder 09:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

What potential lawsuit? RNS has failed utterly to identify this threat against RationalWiki. Who would be suing? On what grounds? The guy who Kevin Martin criticized, or Kevin Martin? Because the material RNS removed clearly positioned Kevin Martin as wrong. So there's no malice or reckless disregard for the truth, there. It's doubtful he'll sue the RMF. Would it be Martin, then? Because the article linked to his bloody website, where he made that claim. So Martin would have to prove his critic is actually a sex offender in order for him to sue us. So where's this potential lawsuit coming from? An invisible purple dragon-lawyer from the depths of hell? See for yourself [3] What here puts RationalWiki at risk?--77.247.181.163 (talk) 09:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

If you've been paying attention to RW over the past year or so, you'll know that the Foundation is facing at least one pending or ongoing lawsuit, as well legal threats by others, including Kevin Martin. I don't know what is happening in any of those cases (and the RMF board members who do have cited lawyer-client privilege as a reason for not discussing them onsite), but posting libellous or legally dubious stuff on the site, especially relating to any of those people, is a really bad idea. As for the specific comments you & the other guy posted, you completely misrepresented what the accusations made by KM were, which means you were libelling both accuser and accused, and in relation to a particularly serious sexual crime. Think about comments you post & who is likely to see them before posting, and next time you see an experienced RW user removing contentious talkpage comments, don't just blindly revert them; think about why they might have done it, or ask them. This isn't the only incident I'm thinking of here. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Linking directly to to the source of something that is libelous, even if it is meant for criticism, makes one still accountable for spreading said libelous statement. Something I tried to convey to Brxbrx, but he chose to ignore. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I asked you if they had communicated that my actions had put the RMF in a legally compromising position - as per your accusation. Not Brx's actions, mine. Of course I know how this started, stop grasping at straws for a way to make yourself feel better about abusing your position and vilifying other people who try to hold you to account for that abuse.

Sophie, yes of course you are correct. No-one is arguing that RNS doesn't have good intentions at heart. However, Brx stopped reverting that material and did not ostensibly plan to reinsert once he was warned it was defamatory. However, RNS, in the mistaken belief that it would be best for the wiki if he banned Brx for reasons like Brx being a toxic troll hell-bent on seeing RationalWiki sued into oblivion . When I reverted this unilateral ban, because it was only designed to bully Brx, he abused his tech powers to reinstate that punishment.Tielec01 (talk) 09:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

That's bullshit, and you know it. I blocked him after he was told, numerous times, that he was pursuing something that could be legally damaging to the RMF. In spite of all attempts to get him to fuck off about it, he kept at it. Thus, he was a danger to the RMF and deserved a block. If I had been trying to bully him, I'd have permabanned the little fucktard. Instead, I gave him a couple days to think about it. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk)

Furthermore, if I had simply wanted to bully Brxbrx, I could certainly have used other means within my technical grasp that would make a 3 day block look nice by comparison. I could've, for example, created an edit filter that would've blocked Brxbrx from ever being active on the Wiki again, and nobody would've known. Indeed, while what I did was less than ethical, it was for a damn good reason that only a few morons here seem oblivious to, and only because they don't want to admit they are 100% wrong on this issue. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 10:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Enough. Decision time

Enough of Tielec's and Brxbrx's trolling of this page. I want a judgement and want one now. Who, other than these two lame-brains and their associated socks and IP hops, think I did soooo much damage to this Wiki in protecting it from legal problems that I deserve consequences? Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 10:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

RNS wanted to block Brxbrx because he was doing something destructive that would've gotten him permabanned anywhere else

• Obviously, part of the evidence is being kept confidential, but, really, the fact that all those in the know are speaking with the same voice is persuasive to me. RNS did the right thing ... and then tempers flared, leaving us here. MarmotHead (talk) 15:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
• Agreed with MarmotHead. Whether Brx realizes it or not, he has spread said potentially libellous information several times since the material was first reverted. His addition of links and such have always been removed (e.g. by Weaseloid on one occasion I remember seeing), and I'm not saying he's doing it on purpose, but clearly RNS had good reason to believe that at least a temporary block was warranted. I agree. - Grant (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
• I've voted before on techs being able to use their powers for the better good (Ty removing Ace's powers, iirc). I don't like the drama surrounding this. Sorry Brx, but you're in the wrong and needed to stop the fight, and you wouldn't til you pissed people off and they made you stop.--Miekal 18:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

RW has notgone insane

• pfft, compared to May 2011 this is next to nothing. Brx needs to stop being a twat and Tielec needs to stop being a wikilawyer about this. ^{— Unsigned, by: Sophie Wilder / talk / contribs} 18:08, 7 October 2014

I'll take that criticism on board Sophie - having said that I think that it's pretty funny to say I'm being a wiki lawyer when RNS is the one talking how he needed to act immediately to protect the wiki from imminent legal action. Point taken though. Tielec01 (talk) 11:46, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Goat

• I'm just gonna pop up for one second to say this: everybody needs to sit the fuck down and chill the fuck out. Brx: stop going on about this filing issue. Goddammit, you were wrong, and you just need I admit that, or I can realistically see you getting permablocked. As for Reckless, I believe that he is doing (or trying to do) this for the good of the wiki. This, combined with the fact that he is a highly valuable asset when it comes to maintenance of the wiki (particularly in relation to edit filters) leads me to believe that his tech rifts should be stripped. Do I think Brx should be permanently blocked? No, I personally do not. However, I do think that some form of enforced, but short term block (i.e. a few weeks/months) might be a good course of action this time around if he doesn't chill the fuck out. In conclusion, everybody needs to stop yelling at each other if shit wants to get done. Additionally, I don't need this kinda shit anymore, so fuck all of you, I'm going back home. MESSIAH OF DOOM ^{Wired were the eyes of a horse on a jet pilot} 11:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
• I don't like to get involved in wikipolitics, especially "this person did X that is so unfair" but I do want to point out wikipedia has its comprehensive BLP rules for a reason. Ikanreed (talk) 12:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Requesting arbitration on Robot talk page.

I should have been this short about the issue earlier, do you believe in second chances sysops fairy? Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 06:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Not interested in the whys and wherefores, but would you kindly stop spamming yourself all over the Wiki. It's been nice & quite for a few days without you. Scream!! (talk) 13:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I DEMAND RETRIBUTION

Chicken Boy and User:WatcherIntheDark among others have impeded on my ability to tell the truth. Chicken Boy has sent me snide insinuations, given me two bans including one 9 hour ban for no good reason not even citing an actual reason for a ban, but some silly nonsense. He, as well as User:Marlow vandalized the title of my essay, and Chicken Boy made it to where I cannot revert said vandalism. Chicken Boy as well as the others need their priivileges revoked for being utter abominations. --Elvis is King (talk) 02:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

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. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks 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. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks 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)

Wow letting someone express a viewpoint which is contrary to your faith based dogmatic beliefs, how very big of you. How "valuable" the work is or is not is irrelevant in determining fair use.LogicMaster777 (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

Nature of the copied work[edit]

Although the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the availability of copyright protection should not depend on the artistic :quality or merit of a work, fair use analyses consider certain aspects of the work to be relevant, such as whether it is fictional or non-:fictional.[13]

To prevent the private ownership of work that rightfully belongs in the public domain, facts and ideas are separate from copyright—only :their particular expression or fixation merits such protection.

Whatever your opinions of the particular "merit" or "value" of the work is irrelevant to whether it is fair use. What is relevant is that it's part of a non-commercial educational work. That's it. That's all you need to know. Merely saying the work isn't ABOUT harry specifically is not the factor which determines whether it is fair use, although Weasloid has made baseless assertions, unsupported by any legal citation to suggest such with no basis in any established fair use doctrine except his made up version. If people are going to cite fair use doctrine please know what you are talking about I am embarassed at the level of ignorance I see from Weaseloid that he feels the need to make up his own copyright laws out of thin air to justify vandalism and censorship. Ya, that's rationalism to an authoritarian statist. Just make shit up, and censor out the opposition. Worked well for Stalin and Hitler I guess.03:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)LogicMaster777 (talk) 03:55, 22 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. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 16:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The fair use doctrine says the images have to be used for eduction. Nothing says Harry Potter pictures have to be used to educate on the specific educational topic of Harry Potter. It merely says the work must be an EDUCATIONAL WORK. If you are claiming otherwise, then cite something to back your legal opinion besides the opinion itself. There is nothing in the fair use doctrine to support your interpretation. :It just says the work itself must be educational. You can't just make up your own rules as you go to justify vandalism of a message you want to censor.LogicMaster777 (talk) 03:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

This is actually a really good example of the irrationality and anti-social aggression which sort of typifies statists. You just make up some arbitrary interpretation saying the pictures of Harry Potter are not Fair use because the topic of the work is't harry potter but NOTHING IN THE FAIR USE DOCTRINE SAYS THAT IF I SHOW HARRY POTTER AS FAIR USE I HAVE TO BE WRITING ABOUT HARRY POTTER SPECIFICALLY. You just make up your own made-up legal theory which bears no relation to established fair use doctrines. Sorry, but just because you don't understand fair use doctrine doesn't mean your made up version therefore becomes right by virtue of your ignorance.LogicMaster777 (talk) 03:36, 22 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)

Uh, what you fail to distinguish in your analysis is that Commons HAS A DIFFERENT UPLOAD POLICY. "Fair use" on commons is not recognized in their policy. They do not have a policy of allowing "fair use uploads". Read their policy for yourself. That's why they were taken off there. Not because they are not fair use but because THEY WERE.LogicMaster777 (talk) 03:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

You do realise that even excluding fair use still leaves two of three similar complaints between RW and Commons (to wit: copyright violation and incomplete documentation), right? Not to mention that it is kind of hilarious to see one so keen on playing the "that's just your opinion"-card insisting that your claim for fair use (not to mention the even more dubious claim of "educational purposes") just has to be accepted by everyone else. Then again, that tactic has been pretty much par for the course throughout your "states are religions"-rants, so I guess I shouldn't be particularly surprised. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

"Wizards wear robes". The last wizard I played wore a sort of frock coat with a mithril chain shirt under it... --Maxus (talk) 20:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Pfft, no True Wizard would wear mithril. We all know metal armor interferes with spellcasting. --Ymir (talk) 21:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Depends what roll playing universe. Not in Marvel Comics.LogicMaster777 (talk) 03:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe an admin is unjustly reverting my edits

Hi, I made some edits to the article Pick up artist (and a few related articles) and was reverted by a few users without any reason given - the admin User:Weaseloid in particular. I left discussions on the talk pages as well as on Weaseloid's page explaining my edits in detail politely, but was only met with curt replies (or none at all). Weaseloid eventually threatened to block me for "vandalism" even though the edits are clearly not vandalism, and he isn't involved in the article at all.

His only claim against the edits are that they were "apologetics", which is false. I toned down much of the ad hom in the article and re-emphazied the fact that there is crossover with "normal" dating and lifestyle advice books and websites; I also elaborated on the deceptive and controverisal practices of PUAs and added additional examples. Weaseloid however just removed entire paragraphs and links when he reverted me repeatedly, then manipulated me into ending the discussion by threatening a "vandal block" which was uncalled for by an admin. I'd definitely like to get my edits restored because the article was more comprehensive and professional in tone, thanks.

--206.255.11.166 (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

(For the record, this is also me - a year ago or more I had an account here but no longer have the username, or access to the email address - http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/206.255.1.57).

http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWeaseloid&diff=1397634&oldid=1397623

Update here: I left a message on Weaseloid's talk page explaining the site standards and how he was overstepping his bounds with his threats - again he refused to reply and just reverted this without warning.--206.255.11.166 (talk) 22:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Weaseloid&oldid=1397634

And in this post he simply replied "fuck off" to me after I wrote a completely civil reply to him. Really professional conduct from an admin. --206.255.11.166 (talk) 22:28, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

1.) Weaseloid replied to you on the talk page of the PUA article: http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pick-up_artist&curid=140923&diff=1397564&oldid=1397563

2.) He threatened to vandal brake you because he considered your continued use of his talk page to talk about the PUA edits as vandalism. This is because he considers his talk page to be an improper place for discussing the PUA edits, as opposed to the PUA article's talk page.

3.) Judging from 1.) and 2.) the best course of action would be for you to reply to Weaseloid on the PUA article talk page. So... go there. Nullahnung (talk) 22:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

But do feel free to post here again if engaging on the talk page doesn't work out. Ikanreed (talk) 23:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Statist Aggression still unresolved

1. As I have pointed out Whether the educational work is about Harry Potter as the subject is irrelevant to whether the photo of Harry Potter is fair use. There is nothing in the fair use doctrine to support this assertion by Weaseloid. He just made this up as his own self proclaimed copyright law and until such time as he can cite some source(there is none) for his "rule" then please do not use Weaseloid's unfounded armchair lawyer made up version of copyright law dictate what gets removed. LogicMaster777 (talk) 04:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

2. WHAT IS RELEVANT What is relevant is that the work is an educational essay and it's for non-commercial purposes. That's it. That's all that is necessary for it to be fair use under fair use doctrine. The "merit" or "value" of the work is irrelevant as to determining whether it is or is not fair use. LogicMaster777 (talk) 04:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

3. ZooGuard is still active vandalizing and censoring my work. I have cited the fair use basis for my work. He asserts without evidence that there is "no fair use rationale" and that my use is "random" with no evidence-based reasoned argument, but only insults and personal attacks to support his position and has provided zero evidence or reasoned argument to support his assertions or his libelous statements that what I've done is infringement. I have a background and experience both as a published author having been paid royalties on a work I have authored and I am also an experienced litigant. If further baseless libelous assertions not backed by evidence that I have engaged in "infringement" then I may pursue appropriate legal action. However, I am hoping we can just resolve this through the site. Is there a way to block ZooGuard from further vandalizing my page and deleting my fair use images for my educational work(regardless of what you think may be the merit of the work)? Can we send him to the vandal bin? What is my recourse here?LogicMaster777 (talk) 04:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't really care how it gets resolved if I can write my article in peace without having to spend time undoing the damage from Statist censorship attacks.LogicMaster777 (talk) 04:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you formally threatening legal action against the RationalMedia Foundation? --Inquisitor (talk) 04:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

No, I am hoping it wouldn't come to that. It's not something worth suing over, probably. Maybe I might just give in and give the statists what they want: A free pass from rationality being applied to their religion. If that is the true agenda of this site: to censor out contrary views to faith-based authoritarian dogma with a pretense of "rationality" then the site is probably not worth spending any more time on. I thought this site was kind of(if not exactly) what it represents itself as: a place for rational debate and a reason-based exploration of ideas. I knew it has its biases and religious agenda.LogicMaster777 (talk) 04:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I am fully aware that, considering the subject matter, it is inevitable that at some point a statist will from time to time have an emotional meltdown and engage in personal attacks or other types of irrational antisocial trolling activity and I knew the risks were there when I attempted to take on such an feat of intellect of this magnitude. This aggressive antisocial statist behavior is actually a predictable symptom of statist irrationality in my opinion. But can I please have some help in actually being able to make my case without being attacked by statist zealots on a book burning rampage trying to stamp out rationality?LogicMaster777 (talk) 04:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

If this site is really based on rationality, rather than pushing a faith-based politioreligious agenda then there should be some sort of solution to this or remedy.LogicMaster777 (talk) 04:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Statists "win". Rationality has been officially rejected in favor of authoritarian censorship. Evidence has been rejected for ignorance. Truth has been sacrificed to dogma. Congratulations, you couldn't "win" through rational debate so you had to resort to aggression and censorship. I think in so doing you have sufficiently evidenced your position to be based on emotion and aggression rather than reason or evidence, and I made most of my points. I think I proved statism is a religion that its belief correlates to irrational and aggressive antisocial behavior.LogicMaster777 (talk) 05:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! Frederick^♠♣♥♦ 07:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Get out and get that brain tumor examined.--Madman (talk) 05:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)The Madman

Just for the record, my last action that could be described as an interaction with LM was in 15:55 UTC on the previous day, so the claim above that "ZooGuard is still active vandalizing and censoring my work" is false.--ZooGuard (talk) 07:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Logicmaster777. Again...

S.O.S. There is a troll who has been vandalizing my page, including now he has deleted the constitution again for the second time. Copyright doctrine says anything created by the government is automatically public domain. I don't know if this guy literally has no clue about the legal doctrines he's using to justify his religious censorship-attack or if he's just deliberately acting in bad faith here, either way he has shredded my user page over and over. Merry Christmas. Thanks to anyone who can help here. I'm trying to use some photos for some educational material, this guy is bent on destroying it. His name ZooGuard. The Page is my user page, the section for the article "A breakdown of Contemporary Governmental Religion." It's been repeatedly attacked. If there is some objection to the technicalities of the upload file, they can be edited; it's not a rational basis for religious censorship attacks where you just delete the file. Please stop in the vandalism attacks. Thank you. Happy new year.00:53, 25 December 2014 (UTC)LogicMaster777 (talk) 00:54, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

When you start confronting the religious tenets of statist religions, statists tend to react similar to Scientologists if someone brings up Xenu. They basically start freaking out and having a meltdown. Can someone vandal bin ZooGuard while he has his Tommy Davis Xenu moment?LogicMaster777 (talk) 01:18, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

"Copyright doctrine says anything created by the government is automatically public domain." That statement in not entirely correct. --Inquisitor (talk) 02:02, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

The U.S. federal government, yes. Landmartian (talk) 02:03, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Can we just block LM from here 'till Monday? Ever since someone said he mainly posts on weekends, he's been posting every night, in increasingly red-eyed amounts. Now he's accusing ZooGuard of a meltdown when, well, if anyone's having a meltdown around here, it's the intellectually-dishonest fuckwit who keeps coming to the Chicken Coop every time someone edits something on his pages or, you know, interacts with him at all. Meaningful contributions are lost in his noise and it's not going to be pleasant to come back from the weekend to sort through the chaff. --Maxus (talk) 02:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Blocking him shouldn't happen unless he does something egregious enough to deserve it. I don't see anything like that right now, as he seems to be staying on his user page except for some edits here in the coop. As far as the image of the US Constitution goes, the onus is on LM777 to show that that particular image has licensing suitable for RW. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 02:48, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Gotcha. I still think he's a dishonest little weasel, though. --Maxus (talk) 02:50, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Inquisitor, what's the point of even saying that? Do you know better than he does? You apparently do, but I think it's clear enough from the context that he's referring to images created by a US government employee. Limitations to this automatic release into the public domain are commonly stated that aren't actually limitations, such as works created for the government by private contractors, which are subject to their own work for hire analysis that's not really relevant here. But that's not what he said. He said "anything created by the government". I would say that his claim is entirely true. It may or may not be true as to state governments, which he may have been including in his claim. I think it is generally true as to state governments. Nutty Roux (talk) 14:32, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

The last time I've deleted a file uploaded by LM was on the 21st, so I have no idea what they are hyperventilating about this time.--ZooGuard (talk) 09:46, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that we should just let LM continue to play with himself as long as he's just posting his endless screeds on his own user and talk page. I'm a bit worried about his level of delusion, though, since this appears to be the second time in as many days that he thinks someone is changing his pages, despite no one actually engaging with him. Anyway, I think this section can soon be archived. ScepticWombat (talk) 10:32, 25 December 2014 (UTC)