RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive36

Ryulong

Ryulong has consistently abused their power to block Chrimony , The Geenius, and IPs using false block summaries (the users, for example, have only engaged in talk pages). For this reason I am going to remove Ryulong's sysop rights, if anyone wants to restore them then go ahead and we can thrash out what to do about his behaviour here with a community vote.

Ryulong has been warned in friendly, friendlier and slightly less friendly terms to stop. They have chosen to ignore warnings and also decided to remove talk page content. This is not someone we need having sysop rights.

Finally can someone with better wiki-fu than me check that this deletion he performed on our coop archives has been restored? Tielec01 (talk) 09:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I deleted it because it was unarchived and then re archived. the user I blocked tonight has been blocked multiple times by other ops here for similar reasons as well. We should not have to suffer from Gamergate peons acting as they do everywhere on the Internet. I also don't see how removing shit from my own talk page is such a big deal. The Geenius came here to harass me. Chrimony is here to be an annoying Gamergate talk piece. The IPs were of questionable origin and later clarified. It's all Gamergate coming here because they know I'm here now and they are itching for a fight. That is evident to anyone who has been looking at these pages. You have been spending way too much time policing me without looking deeper IMHO.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Read this and this. Read them twice, because you are a little slow on the uptake. Tielec01 (talk) 10:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

So because there is no rule against being an obnoxious cock that means I am the bad guy?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

More because people have repeatedly pointed out to you that talking bullshit on talkpages isn't a proper reason for banning people on RW. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 10:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

And yet I am not the only person to have blocked these idiots for these reasons. I am not the only one in their block logs. Honestly, y'all have set a bad example because as many times as I've seen this pointed out to me I can see that people are plain old disregarding the very advice I was given. The Geenius is gone because he admits he was solely here to be a cock to me. Chrimony is somehow indefinitely affected by an hour long block I gave him last week and this 9 hour one I gave today that it seems you immediately lifted Tielec01. We are all tired of his useless repetition of the same Gamergate garbage every time something new comes up. He has not once contributed to any page despite consistently complaining about the content. I have suffered through half a year of this kind of behavior and I don't want to keep having to see the same shit be brought up that has been debunked months ago. Fine. I will stop blocking gators for gating so incredibly obviously but we all need to stop feeding the troll voice of the hate movement every time he complains about the same useless garbage every other day.. Tielec01 you have done nothing but been a hard ass to me when people here longer than me have done the exact same shit. What is up with that? I mean you literally told me that it was wrong to block someone for explicitly harassing me. Do we need to vote on what it means to be a total cock to someone else?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

And because other people set a bad example you have to implicate yourself as well? Yeah, that argument always works well in court. >.> 141.134.75.236 (talk) 10:46, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Then why am I being called out on this and not typhoon or fuzzy cat potato?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:48, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

We don't block people for being cocks. Be thankful for that Ryulong; extend other people the courtesy that has been extended to you.

Furthermore, are you obtusely trying to intimate that I am picking on you for some nefarious reason? if you're going to accuse me of something spit it out.

Regarding the other editors, if I see them block people for no reason I will follow the same process I followed for you. Tielec01 (talk) 12:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Ryulong is literally being targeted for harassment by Gamergate, including following him to RW; the blockees are in no regard whatsoever on RW for any useful, productive or even entertaining purpose, but literally only to stir up shit. Enabling harassment of the people who are here to contribute is precisely the point on which Wikipedia world-famously fucked up just recently; I would suggest it's not a great practice to import - David Gerard (talk) 12:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

They aren't doing anything wrong except arguing on talk pages. If you can't handle that then RW is not the right place for you. You, Ryulong or I don't get to ban people based on our opinion on who is useful, productive or entertaining.

DG, as you know it's our practice not to judge people based on their actions from areas outside RW. I deliberately avoided bringing up WP in my reason for removing Ryulong's rights, and I think that is absolutely in our and his best interests to not discuss it here. Tielec01 (talk) 12:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Then you are being deliberately stupider than you should be. They are literally here just to stir up shit, and pretending they aren't so you can have a go at Ryulong is blithering stupidity - David Gerard (talk) 12:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

There's literally nothing I can say to make my position clearer; I haven't said the above as you well know. I'll continue to remove Ryulong's rights every time he bans someone inappropriately, unless the community decides otherwise. Tielec01 (talk) 13:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Gerard is absolutely on point here. Blind devotion to rules or general practice, "because we don't do X on RW" is not an appropriate attitude when dealing with online harassment. It's short-sighted, both in terms of thinking about the effects of online discourse on the people behind the keyboards, and in terms of the larger political optic, ie, do we want RW to contribute to a toxic culture of online bullying. We have in the past issued heavy bans on people because and only because of what they have said on talk pages -- check out your RW history. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 13:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

None of Ryulong's stated block reasons (plz be less boring in the future, Greasy grimy gopher guts is why, etc) indicate that he is responding to harassment or bullying. Furthermore he's using the argument that other people have blocked these users for 3 seconds and 5 minutes (what we call a joke block) as justification for blocking them for hours and days. It's not the first time his trigger-happy blocking has been brought up here & I doubt it will be the last. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Yep, you gotta show restraint with these people. Chriomony is a tendentious douche with a single agenda, but they're not specifically here to harass Ryulong. Ikanreed (talk) 14:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

This is incorrect, they've been throwing everything they can at him about RW - David Gerard (talk) 15:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

In regards to me, your statement is false. More often than not I don't even respond to Ryulong, let alone "harass" him, because the arguments are so poor. Chrimony (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Gotta throw that pointless jab in don't you? You do reply to Ryulong, as much as any other editor. But it's true that you're not here for that. Ikanreed (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Considering how I've been smeared and banned by Ryulong, I don't feel bad about that jab. And I really don't reply much to Ryulong for the reason I stated. I could compile stats if you like, but it seems like a lot of work for a trivial point. Chrimony (talk) 17:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The ban I put on you would have probably expired by now. And how is it smearing to say you're a gator here solely to stir up shit and not productively contribute?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

This is not the best venue to continue any argumentation, particularly of a personal variety. Ikanreed (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I did contribute to the page, via FuzzyCatPotato: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Gamergate#Proposed_PC_Gamer_edit Of course, my contribution ended up being slanted by Fuzzy against Gamergate, and I argued against it on the Talk page. The Gamergate article is a one-sided hit piece. I don't edit the page directly because I know it will just be reverted. Should I edit war instead? Because I'm sure that will get me banned without the sysop being sanctioned like you are here.

And I don't sit there on the Talk page all day preaching Gamergate. There were several days that went by with nothing said, until I argued against a recent edit you made. But in your eyes this is a bannable offense, because you can't stand allowing an alternative viewpoint, even if it's just in the talk pages. Chrimony (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

As Ikanreed said, this isn't the place to continue these discussions on how you really haven't done much other than push Gamergate shit.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Ignoring the GG shitheads, let's go to the real issue at hand.

Ryulong was defrocked because of Gamergate, yes. But he has a history of abuse of power (Not to mention once been paid to edit, no matter who the party paying him was), and will do the same here without intervention. He violated WIKIPEDIA:OWN many times over his career as a sysop. He was too fond of the revert button, even against reminders of him being open to recall. He is ableist and homophobic. He harassed Videmus with endless banning. He has held hegemony over the sentai articles because those higher-up in WP turned a blind eye to his bullshit. Jimmy Wales told him to get the fuck out. He has abused his power in many ways, and the Gamergate article on WP was only the newest in a long pattern. I don't want this distinctly unprincipled editor here. --Madman (talk) 01:49, 4 February 2015 (UTC)The Madman

What has any of that got to do with us? Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing. I just don't like him.--Madman (talk) 01:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)The Madman

That's your prerogative, but it really isn't 'the real issue at hand'. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

So you've basicaly pulled everything from my ED page except my real name out of your ass eh? Also the Wikipedia vandal known as "MascotGuy" literally has autism. It's not ableist to explain that the reason he is a problem is because of his neuroatypicality. Not to mention that that Tweet has been exclusively used to harass me, Jimbo only said shit because he was getting sealioned on Twitter for weeks because of everything that happened because of Wikipedia's Gamergate page and the publicity of my Twitter account, Videmus Omnia was a cock, and who gives a fuck about the sentai pages here other than you and Exiled Encyclopedist? There's nothing about Japanese pop culture here and the only reason that people hated me for those pages is because none of them know that Wikipedia's rules give preference to reliable sources rather than illegal fansubs. And because I'm gone from Wikipedia every single asshole who hated me for having the gall to say "its officially 'Tajadol' and 'Buddyloid'" which is the only reason they fucking hate me decided to fuck up everything on Wikipedia out of spite. Are you one of them? Are you here to be a complete cockbag because you don't like the letter L?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

MadmanJohnson shooting himself in the foot

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)

What happened to the last time Ryulong was cooped?

It's less than a month since stripping Ryulong was last stripped of sysopship: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Chicken_coop/Archive35#Ryulong . Unless people have changed their minds since then, we don't even have to vote again. --Someon (talk) 12:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Nutty Roux

Threatening me for a year-long ban for conceding a point is pretty fucking flagrant propagation of a personal dislike on a venue he thinks he could justify the attack. I get the value of not getting the foundation sued, I really really do, but it's pretty clear that his statements don't actually relate to what I was actually saying. Ikanreed (talk) 19:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The threat is real. You recognize it. I was threatening a year long ban because you lied. My statements were directly addressing things you said point by point. And your "concession" didn't convince me that you wouldn't get closer to saying something you may not than you already had, simply because of your vanity, or whatever sometimes keeps you from sound reasoning. My feelings about you have nothing to do with you or anyone else putting the RMF at risk. Say that out loud. Several times. It needs to sink In. I'm going to reiterate what you were told in private. You need to shut your mouth. I'm reverting you reverting your frivolous coop because this isn't personal, it isn't a joke, and other editors need to know that. I not responsible for your behavior. Say that out loud. Several times. Nutty Roux (talk) 19:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, fine. But really, I didn't fucking lie. You should be more cautious in defaming private individuals if that's your damned motivation in the first place. People made convincing arguments that I was making a mountain of a molehill, and I was. You decided that was grounds for condescension and basis-less accusations of dishonesty. So, if we're bringing this back out, don't be fucking rude about it. Regardless of the reasonableness of your motivations, what you actually said was needlessly antagonistic and didn't work to help anything. Ikanreed (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I can't help calling a liar a liar, but you're correct that pointing that out apparently isn't helping anything since you're keeping it up. Nutty Roux (talk) 19:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Guess I'm suing rationalwiki for defmation. Seriously, stop with the false accusations of dishonesty, it doesn't help. (here, since we're so worried about how humor and jokes work, the strike-through means I am not sincerely considering suing anyone, but instead having a joke at the expense of people who can't avoid slander in the same breath as decrying it as the worst crime ever) Ikanreed (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Look dude, I'm not RW, so if you want to tee hee joke about suing someone tee hee hee joke about suing me. And I'll laugh at you. And calling someone a liar in writing is not slander. It's also not libel. I know you want to call me a hypocrite, but do it right or don't do it at all. And make sure it's relevant. Nutty Roux (talk) 02:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

How about you just not call me a liar when I was entirely forthright about my beliefs and opinions? Too hard? (My chicken coop complaint is still entirely resolved, this is strictly a personal discussion) Ikanreed (talk) 21:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Christ Almighty, there was no friggin' risk to the damn RMF. Tell you what, you have legal problems? I'll offer to cover it all with my own attorneys, no charge. Talk about a fuckin' WHARGARBL. No, wait, I take that back. I'm cranky as fuck and I'm taking it out on you for no reason. I apologize for that and please disregard. --Castaigne (talk) 02:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Please contact me privately to make arrangements for you to pay for counsel to defend the lawsuit recently filed against Trent as a result of an RW editor's self-entitlement to say whatever the fuck he wants. I may be an asshole, but if you honestly think there's nothing to take this seriously and that I'm picking on people I don't like, you're apparently not a very sophisticated person. I don't know what else to say. Nutty Roux (talk) 02:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

How about you just use my attorney system instead? Whichever state of the Union it's in, it's paid for in advance. (Although if it's a SLAPP suit, you might be better off requesting the Popehat Signal be lit for you.)

Further edit: No, I don't think you are picking on people you don't like. I think you have an agenda, though, and thus you will use any means to further the agenda. But that's everyone in the world. --Castaigne (talk) 20:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Let it go, guy. Even if he's, as I myself (unreasonably) charged, picking on people from a vendetta, the "cover story" itself is totally legitimate. This is one issue not to push people on. Ikanreed (talk) 21:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Bicycle Wheel Vandalizing Rationalist criticism of Shafly article in a statheist religious censorship attack

I criticized the statheist irrationality contained in the Shafly in that the article calls Shafly "extremist" which is implied comes from his faith in a literalist interpretation of the bible, and then the article itself quotes from "sacred authoritative writings" to prove its point with regard to the criticism of Shafly's education methods. This is a performative contradiction and illogical/irrational and I wrote a segment on it on the talk page. Bicycle has made a collapsible called "Whining/persecution" to contain my logical argument(as well as some stuff that arguably does belong there). The discussion did go off on a tangent that was getting kind of irrelevant to the subject of the article, and I don't object to containing some or most of it(some of it is possibly whiny I admit), but the logical argument I made is not any more "whining" than the entirety of the article itself. Nor does it reference "persecution" although I did later mention how Bicycle has been targeting it for statist censorship attacks. I confronted him on his talk page to provide some rational basis for the vandalism, and he doesn't respond, he just reverts to the censored version. I want to leave the relevant logical criticism of the article outside the collapsible. The other stuff should probably be collapsed. This is the type of censorship attack which statheists criticize CWers for doing ironically(for the same religious reasons) and is evidence that actually shows the heavy statheist religious agenda being pushed on this site by the statheist contingency. It's not just an isolated incident, it's part of a pattern of religiously-motivated censorship attacks by statheist crusaders on this site.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxTJnjLkbk8LogicMaster777 (talk) 22:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Bicycle Wheel vandalizing rationalist criticism of Shlafly Article

Bicycle wheel is trying to censor dissenting criticism to further the statheist religious agenda. Can someone please vandal bin him? He keeps vandalizing the rationalist pov criticism of the article. Just because statheists don't like a particular criticism because it points out the logical contradictions inherent to the statheist agenda does not make it "whining" or justify vandalizing it simply to silence dissent from the authoritarian mission of the statheist crusader contingent.LogicMaster777 (talk) 15:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Ikanreed targeting my contributions to the Antiscience page for censorship

This page keeps up a non-overlapping magesteria policy of censoring material critical of its religious majority's irrationalism. Rational criticism of that particular type of faith based authoritarian belief system is strictly off limits. This is a bigoted targeting based on a perceived "ideological" characteristic rather than because the content violates the actual rules of the site. LogicMaster777 (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you learn from your mistakes? Ikanreed (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

By mistakes you mean that I don't ascribe to your ideology and voice critical thought toward its logical inconsistencies? The statheist admins routinely abuse and misuse their status as the "majority" to censor opposed minority viewpoints. That's all it is. You statheist authoritarians rule this site with an iron fist. Do you get government funding to do this? I wonder if there is an undisclosed financial conflict of interest at play. I really want to know how you justify vandalizing a topical rationalist pov criticism other than you are pushing your faith based agenda. LogicMaster777 (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

De-sysop AgingHippie for abusing both blocks and the dispute process

1) On March 1, I was blocked for 9 hours by AgingHippie with the reason: "Alright, it's become clear you are only here to harrass one user. Why not take a little break from that." Both of those statements are untrue. I was not "harassing" anybody, I was pointing out an issue of hypocrisy, providing facts when challenged, and protecting my comments from being reverted and then hidden with a collapse tag. I also was responding to two users in my initial comment, the first being Ryulong, the second being Castaigne. It's not my fault that Ryulong uses dirty tactics when he thinks he can get away with it, and that his defenders treat him like a special victim when they are battling against an ideological enemy. However, these very same users are in constant battle with Ryulong over his ownership of the Gamergate page, so it's clearly not just me having trouble with him.

2) On February 28, AgingHippie blocked LogicMaster777 for 9 hours with the reason: "Just because". When asked on his talk page about it , his response was "There is only decaf in the house. Beware. Peace."

3) On February 22-23, on three separate occasions AgingHippie unilaterally removed cases from the Coop lodged by LogicMaster777 on the very same day they were lodged [1][2][3]. You (and even I) may not like what he has to say, but that's no reason he shouldn't at least be given a fair hearing.

4) On February 18, AgingHippie unilaterally removed an active case involving himself from the Coop with the reason: "Blocked for alleged doxxing: Tiresome BoN who thinks RW is the place to discuss a private individual's gender identity.", when the article under question comments on that very issue, and AgingHippie also removed the Coop notice from his own Talk page with the reason: "Super uninteresting."

5) On February 4, AgingHippie unilaterally removed an active case from the Coop with the nonsensical reason "Archiving this shit. Sort it out yourselves, but take your Gamergate nonsense off of my wiki.". I say nonsensical because he has argued for having the Gamergate page on the wiki as missional and has been extensively editing it and commenting on the Talk page. When asked on AgingHippie's Talk page by Tielec01 to put it back, he completely ignored the request (link is to last version of page with a comment in that section).

I request that AgingHippie has his sysoped privs removed and that he refrains from removing any case from the Coop. Due process should be allowed and consensus achieved, and somebody else besides him should make that call.

Chrimony (talk) 13:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't forget 6) "He obsessively expounds pro-peace views in all his messages! Argh! It's so infuriating!" 141.134.75.236 (talk) 13:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

1) As I haven't followed the Gamergate shitstorm, I'll refrain from commenting on this one.

2) As to blocking LogicMaster777, I'd say LM had it coming for a looong time having been warned several times about keeping his seemingly endless "imaginary state"-crankery off RW talk pages.

3) Similarly, LM's complaints here on the coop are (in my eyes) spurious offshoots of LM's crankery being removed or collapsed on talk pages, which LM claims is "statist/statheist censorship".

4) Gamergate again. Not. Going. To. Touch. It. With. An. Eight. Mile. Pole.

5) Yet more Gamergate, but with what seems to be an even less interesting personal squabble between RW editors as an outgrowth of the Gamergate shit-fest. Don't really care, but perhaps AgingHippie was wrong to remove it so quickly and not responding to requests for restoration.

Conclusion:

A) I see little to no reason for AH to lose his mop over his actions against LM who has been allowed a very long leash already.

B) There may be more reason for concern over the Gamergate crap, but I'll leave evaluation of that issue to those who're actually involved or have the inclination to bite into this turd sandwich. ScepticWombat (talk) 13:48, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Chrimony's here for the sole purpose of trolling me because he is what we in the business like to call a Gator.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

That's a lie. I have hundreds of edits here, the majority of which do not involve you. Chrimony (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikilawyering to remove your enemies won't work here. This is not Wikipedia.--ZooGuard (talk) 13:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not trying to "remove" anybody. I just want somebody abusing their privs to silence their enemies to have those privs taken away. Chrimony (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Addendum: Skimming through Chrimony's record doesn't make me more sympathetic to the request to de-mop AgingHippie. Chrimony has, as far as I can tell, done nothing outside the Gamergate talk page mêlée and associated conflicts with other RW editors to the extent that the label "Gator" does seem to fit the bill. This doesn't mean that Chrimony is necessarily wrong, but I'd say it suggests caution against humouring someone who seems to spend all their time on RW getting into scraps over effin' Gamergate. ScepticWombat (talk) 14:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

To add, I'd recommend everyone to check out Chrimony's edit log, especially all the anger he throws into every single edit summary. Guy is here to pick up fights with people. His block for harassing others was well deserved. Typhoon (talk) 15:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I will go along with Sceptic Wombat's fisking above, particularly with regard to LM777. (I also don't give two shits about Gamergate, and resent the amount of effort it takes to ignore it in recent changes, but that is nobody else's problem but mine.) Aging Hippie has a history of wielding his mop responsibly, keeping the trolls and performance artists down to a dull roar. About complaint #5, his action may have been peremptory, but something something c'est la pomme de terre. In my jaundiced view, the coop should not be a place for gladly hosting gator squabbles, nor for this kind of tedious tendentious wikilawyering.

Dismiss this case with prejudice, or else summon Foster the Cruel from the depths of the abyss to sort the bleaters out, say I. Alec Sanderson (talk) 15:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Apart from the rather tedious "peace" at the end of every post, I can't see that AH has done anything wrong. Scream!! (talk) 15:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I vote that Chrimony be fed to a pit of wild jerboas, with prejudice, for (1) having really angsty edit summaries (2) 90/10 rule. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 18:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

So in summary, "Ugh, Gamergate!" You won't enforce the sites own policies or ethos for ideological reasons. All I've done is dissent on Talk pages on a controversial issue getting completely one-sided treatment, which your site policies invite people to do, and I've been no more ill-mannered than the Gamergate article itself or many of the people editing it. Chrimony (talk) 19:08, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Three things are suggestive in this reply:

1. A complete lack of any realisation of the possibility that Chrimony might be in the wrong here.
2. Playing up the persecution complex angle (rather hilarious, considering Chrimony's appeal for sanctions against AH).
3. The use of the phrase "your site policies".

But I'll actually have to agree with the final point. Considering that Chrimony has yet to actually contribute to a single article, or even comment on anything unrelated to Gamergate, it appears that (s)he doesn't actually want to be part of RW or contribute anything substantial. Can't say I'm too distraught, though. ScepticWombat (talk) 19:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

1. I might be wrong, but you are the one who admittedly refused to do the due dilligence to determine if I was or not, because "Gamergate". You even admitted that I may not be wrong. Your sole complaint, after skimming my comment history, was that I regularly got into disputes about Gamergate. Is this a surprise considering I'm the lone voice here arguing on behalf of Gamergate?

2. Imagine that, somebody being persecuted in a one-sided manner is playing up the persecution angle on the Coop, where grievances are supposed to be heard.

3. I am in fact an atheist and a skeptic, but I have no desire to contribe to "Rational" (take a drink) Wiki outside of Gamergate when doing so would help provide a fig-leaf to the site's one-sided and agenda-driven coverage of political topics. That said, there's absolutely no reason why that should matter when I come to argue on a topic I care about that is getting railroaded. I again refer you to your site's policies, which you clearly have no interest in adhering to.

Besides that, if you would actually investigate before making pronouncements and decisions (you know, like actually read the cases that were removed from the Coop), you would know that I indirectly contributed to the Gamergate article (I was asked to propose an edit, and it found its way in, spun of course against Gamergate), and you would also know why I don't edit the article directly (my edits would just get reverted with extreme prejudice).

Chrimony (talk) 20:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

It's very obvious you are not here to help improve the wiki (this is your single non talk page edit [1]). A lawyery Coop complaint isn't going to go anywhere. Stop wasting people's time. --Marlow (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

And it's very obvious you're not replying to what I wrote, and instead rehashing what I already responded to, but this time with "evidence" of something I already acknowledged. I'll repeat myself: "That said, there's absolutely no reason why that should matter when I come to argue on a topic I care about that is getting railroaded. I again refer you to your site's policies, which you clearly have no interest in adhering to." But apparently complaining about sysop abuse and appealing to the basic policies and supposed ethos of the wiki is "lawyering". Chrimony (talk) 22:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Question from an uninteresting party: as to point 4 in the aforementioned complaint, where exactly is the subject involved in the case he allegedly removed. diff ? Thanks. nobs^{I was in Bagdad when u wer in dadsbag.} 22:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

AgingHippie blocked the IP the day before on February 17th. Notice that in referenced diff of the Coop case, the BoN specifically refers to this: "I also strongly object to revoking of my talk page access and that I was given no warning of any sort.", though he does also go on to say, "I have no desire for AgingHippie to be sanctioned in any way.". Even so, I think AgingHippie was too involved to be unilaterally removing a case from the Coop (and I was very careful to say he was only involved in the case, not that the case was against him). Chrimony (talk) 22:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah, Chrimony beat me to the punch ;-) What I did write was: Hi nobs. I think Chrimony refers to the conflict of interests involved in AgingHippie deleting the coop complaint from the blocked BoN when AH was also the one who blocked the BoN (for doxxing, btw). So it's not because AH was involved in the coop page discussion or in the entries on TiaC's talkpage which occasioned the block, but the fact that AH was behind the block as well as the coop delete. ScepticWombat (talk) 22:48, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

As for Chrimony's earlier response to yours truly:

1. No, I didn't "admittedly refused to do the due diligence". I simply left your Gamergate-related allegations to be sorted out by others who know (more) about and/or can be bothered with the Gamergate crap in which I have little to no interest. Instead, I responded only to the LM issues which I do know about, and which made me wonder whether you bothered to check LM's record before invoking him as a supposedly fellow martyr? Have you noted that, so far, no one have agreed with you that you're being unfairly persecuted or that AH is on a blocking rampage, Chrimony? Likewise, have you noted that no one are complaining about the block on LM? Not even LM himself?
2. Yes, everyone else who have commented are obviously persecuting you for saying that your claims of persecution and demands to de-mop AgingHippie are spurious...
3. Good for you that you're an atheist and a sceptic. That just makes me wonder why you've decided to only immerse yourself in the Gamergate slug fest. You seem to think that everything else on RW is just an elaborate cover for nefarious politicking surrounding Gamergate and some vaguely associated "one-sided and agenda-driven coverage of political topics". I wonder if you realise what this sounds like? And again, the only one who thinks you're being railroaded so far is you.

PS. Before you go on with your allegations of underhand political motives, I'll just mention that, from the little I've seen of her, I think Sarkeesian is a pop cultural feminist crusader (crusaderess?) whose contributions to pop cultural analysis are about as profound and valuable as McDonald's contributions to gastronomy. However, (and apropos your spurious false analogy invoking Jack Thompson) Sarkeesian (et al.) has not stepped beyond trying to use anything heavier than some generalised non-specific shaming — to which a proper critical response could be: "Your analysis sucks and you shouldn't couch your politico-cultural preferences in social justice terminology based on such piss poor reasoning and argumentation" (and such responses are plentiful, btw). By contrast, the humongous MRA and similar Gator shit slinging in the Gamergate clusterfuck has been vile to an extent that anyone unfamiliar with the Interwebz could hardly imagine. Does such Gator (mis)behaviour lend strength to Sarkeesian's argument? No, but the reverse is even less true, because when did poor and/or politically biased analyses and advocacy become accepted grounds for harassment, intimidation or similar outright persecution?

Have a nice day. ScepticWombat (talk) 22:48, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

1. Yes, you "simply left" it up for the people I've been arguing against to decide the merits of my case, while at the same time urging a response against me because I've been here to debate Gamergate, and also having the temerity to chastise me for not acknowlding I might be wrong when you openly refuse to investigate and make informed opinions of how I'm wrong. Good job!

As for LogicMaster777, did you not notice that he was unblocked 9 minutes later (out of a 9 hour block) by Landmartian, with the reason: "If you feel like giving a gift "just because", it should be flowers or something"

2. Gee, the people I'm arguing against think my case is spurious. It's like if I got banned from Conservapedia and everybody there was against me, it's just a persecution complex! Never mind that there still has been no reason shown as to why the block was justified beyond, essentially, "He argues for Gamergate!".

3. Not a non-sequitor or a red herring. You raised the issue about me not editing "Rational" (take a drink) more widely, and I responded as to why I didn't. Also, this is a strawman: "RW is just an elaborate cover for nefarious politicking surrounding Gamergate". I never said any such thing. The political bias surrounding "Rational" (take a drink) Wiki was there long before Gamergate. Gamergate is just one of many political issues that are treated in a one-sided manner while going under the pretense of being "rational" and "skeptics".

And holy shit, for somebody who says, "Gamergate again. Not. Going. To. Touch. It. With. An. Eight. Mile. Pole. ", that's quite a rant about Gamergate, which you clearly have a strong opinion against.

Chrimony (talk) 23:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah, what fun Chrimony, but I still notice some problems:

1. You miss the point that while the LM block was lifted, no one suggested it was a heinous act or unfair given LM's record. A record which you have so far not mentioned even once. Have you any idea why some of us were less than incensed about the block? Or wny you are apparently the only one who sees any problem with the archival of LM's coop entries? No one except you seem to be suggesting that AH's actions vis-a-vis LM wasn't either quite okay (especially the coop deletions), or, in the case of the block, was at worst a slight overreaction.
2. So, you couldn't get your way on the seemingly endless GG thread and instead tried to drum up support for having one of those who disagreed with lose his mop? Gee, that sounds like you're really being persecuted around here... But I'm sure it's just because we're all in cahoots in railroading you, right?
3. It is rather telling that you feel the need to beat your chest about your atheist scepticism, yet "contribute" only by commenting on GG which has pretty much zero to do with either of these topics and then you claim that this self-imposed limit is due to RW being unfairly politically biased... Oookaaay, that makes absolutely no sense. It's not like there aren't a host of pages that could use a makeover, yet you claim that this would somehow legitimise some kind of (as yet unnamed and undefined) bias on the "many political issues that are treated in a one-sided manner". How does this mysterious transmigration of legitimacy work, exactly? Also, it would be so much easier if you actually spelled out what you're referring to rather than these convoluted and cryptic allusions to bias and political issues. Could you come up with a sample of articles (say, 3 or 5, perhaps even 10) that you think are unfair, and perhaps (gasp!) suggestions for improvements, or even (and I know I'm naughty for suggesting this on a wiki) consider revising them or raise the issues on their talk pages? Instead, you're constantly making these vague allegation about RW being this opaque conspiracy-sounding enterprise that you don't want to engage with or contribute to - apart from picking fights over GG, apparently. This is hardly a very productive or constructive way to engage with RW (or spend your own time, for that matter), so I kind of wonder why you bother? Unless the whole point is to pick fights and then bitch about how unfair and biased RW and its editors are (if so, congratulations, mission accomplished).

My PS. was merely a response to your claim that this is all some sort of railroading of poor innocent you by sinister white knighting RW editors eager to trumpet Sarkeesian's brand of simplistic feminist'esque cultural analysis. I really do have very little interest in GG which seems to be one of those self-sustaining flamewars that has gone completely off the rails. From the little I've seen of it, however, it would seem that the Gator side comprise a far larger share of seriously disturbing asshattery than the Sarkeesianistas, but I'd freely admit to having a less than perfect overview of the débâcle and an even smaller inclination to start sorting through the sewage. ScepticWombat (talk) 01:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

A cursory examination of his contributions shows Chrimony to be a misogynist shitbird and talkpage troll. The elderly bong-jockey was right to block him. This Coop case is without merit and should be dismissed with extreme prejudice. --MtD^{Notorious Sodomite} 22:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, many of the accusations we have leveled against Chrimony could also easily be leveled against Ryulong (and I don't think Ryulong should be banned or sanctioned either). I don't know why you think he is a troll, I think he genuinely believes what he is arguing for. Forgive me for sounding like a broken record here but when a person holds a viewpoint that dissents from the majority we have to be very careful with our behaviour. It is all too easy to harass the guy that no-one likes, so we must be more vigilant when we are sanctioning unpopular editors.

Chrimony is right that we largely no longer live up to our community standards. Perhaps because the wiki has moved on from it's radical roots into a more statist mid-state, or perhaps because editors are ignorant of them. Maybe we should change them to reflect current practice.

(FYI - I think Chrimony is largely wrong in terms of the beliefs they hold, to head off the inevitable accusation of being an MRA that will come from this post). Tielec01 (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Well I do think that Ryulong seems like a whiner who's skating on thin wikilawyering ice (and I do seem to recall him been cautioned btw), but as I mentioned I'd rather leave the GG fights alone. What Chrimony has done here is simply presented a rather dubious case and answered responses with what amounts to "You're all just biased!"

For instance, I explicitly wrote in my first post that I would only deal with the LM cases because that's what I'm familiar with, yet Chrimony immediately responded that I was in on the attempt to railroad him (not a good first encounter with someone I've never interacted with before). When I pointed out the actual circumstances behind the LM cases that indicated a very long patience for LM's crankery and why it was finally used up, Chrimony essentially responded that it didn't matter because proper procedure was more important (this sounds like the very definition of wikilawyering).

The allegation is not just that AH has unfairly banned Chrimony, but that he's indiscriminately and systematically stifling dissent and should be de-sysopped as a result, and I simply pointed out that the LM example used doesn't substantiate that charge. My interactions with Chrimony got (perhaps too) heated because every time I disagreed with his interpretations, I was slapped with the "See? Tribalism!"-hammer. Chrimony has yet to explain why LM should be allowed to fill article talk pages with his, by now, quite well-known rants without at least having them collapsed, or why the factual substance of LM's coop case merited more than rejection. If Chrimony's discussion had been about more than just procedure, I'd be more likely to agree with you about having to be careful about not stifling dissent or piling on dissenters.

This leads me to ask (in all seriousness):

1. Where in the LM cases do you think RW in general or AH in particular has violated community standards?
2. Are procedural issues alone enough to merit such a serious allegation/conclusion, or need the actual merits of the case to be factored in as well?

(In this case of LM, the latter covers the fact that LM was allowed free reign off article talk pages and warned numerous times to confine his never-ending "States are imaginary/religions!"-crankery to his own (talk) pages, and that the coop and other venues actually did discuss the merits of his claims of censorship).

Looking forward to a discussion (perhaps to be moved to another RW venue? Suggestions are welcome) of community standards, if/when/why we violate them, and what we should do about it, 'cause I certainly agree with you that RW shouldn't be stifling dissent. ScepticWombat (talk) 10:18, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

To the mob

AgingHippie desysopped

Pillory him. Feed him to the dogs. Draw and quarter him. To the rack. Disembowel him. Flay him. Beat him about the face and neck. Do horrible things and don't stop doing horrible things. Foster the Cruel is a monster. He must be stopped. Nutty Roux (talk) 04:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

AgingHippie given a slap on the wrist

1. ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 23:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
2. Landmartian (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
3. nobs^{I was in Bagdad when u wer in dadsbag.} 00:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC) No COI really cause he was acting in the interests of others (i.e. the alleged victim of doxxing, & the RMF) but he should have explained himself better. Doesn't even warrant a slap, but people skills come along with dealing with idiots responsibility. nobs^{I was in Bagdad when u wer in dadsbag.} 00:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
4. AgingHippie is not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy! But yes, I agree with nobs (what am I saying?) that AH has now gotten a message about being a wee bit more specific when wielding the awesome powers of the mop. So, in effect what I'm saying is that this is the slap on the wrist ['wags finger at AH'], and I hope he has learned his lesson (incl. the potentially disastrous consequences of running out of coffee - decaf doesn't count). ScepticWombat (talk) 01:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

   ^This. FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 02:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

5. AH is fast becoming one of my favourite editors here, but I still can't fully condone this behaviour. Tielec01 (talk) 03:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

AgingHippie hoisted up onto the shoulders of the mob and given a victory lap

1. (a victory lap dance would be OK too) MaillardFillmore (talk) 23:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
2. Scream!! (talk) 23:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
3. And Chrimony should be publicly vilified like a trollop in the stocks. --MtD^{Notorious Sodomite} 23:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
4. It's utterly disingenuous for someone who has, by their own admission, no interest in improving this wiki to run around trying to desysop folks. Trolling at best. Marlow (talk) 00:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
5. Slap-on-the-wrist would be totally appropriate if anyone with genuinely honest intentions were raising this concern. That's not what's happening here. Ikanreed (talk) 00:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
6. Narky "Reiterating" Sawtooth (Floof!~) 00:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
7. David Gerard (talk) 13:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Consensus

Consensus is 1 for desysop, 4 for slap on wrist, and 6 for hoising on shoulders. Punishment, enacted:

*slap*

• 
• 
• 

Be warned, AgingHippie; if you continue to act like this, further punishments of this kind will be imposed. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ﹐ Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 02:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The accused explains himself

There are 5 acts of mine at play here. Here is my response to each of them:

1. I blocked Chrimony. I did. And I am unrepentent. He is only here to hassle Ryulong, and while Ryulong is a pain-in-the-ass editor, he is OUR pain-in-the-ass editor, and I believe fiercely in loyalty and in protecting my tribe from being hassled. I don't even need to go into Chrimony's record as a "Gator" or an anti-feminist to feel okay about this one. Don't fuck with my people. Even the ones I don't like.
2. I blocked the Logic guy, just 'cause he's an annoying shit who clogs up RC with meaningless drivel and his "essays" make us look like a bunch of fruitcakes. I shouldn't have done that, really, but, lots of you were glad to see me do it. I won't do it again, unless I do. But I probably won't.
3. I removed Logic's Coop case because see above and because part of me thinks that if you are not going to be an active member of the community -- even if that just means saying fun stuff in the Bar -- you have no business drawing on community resources. Basically, we're hosting the guy's blogs for free. Fuck him for thinking people should worry about his concerns.
4. This one is serious. A BON posting, if not doxx, doxx-lite that was a connect-the-dots, circumstantial-evidence-based outing of someone. And then coops me for it? The original post was intolerable, and fuck you if you think that's debatable.
5. Jesus Christ, look at that mess. All that was required was a heads-up to Ryulong to be careful with his blocking, maybe ask some regular users to keep an eye out for the people hassling him. Instead we get a sprawling debate going nowhere that pulled in a vile ED page attacking one of our editors. Nobody who counts was sad to see that nonsense go. Even Gerard and Weasel, two guys who usually like to see due process run its course and were involved in the debate, said nothing about its disappearance.

All I got to say on this. That and whoever called me an "old bong-jockey" made my fucking day. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 01:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

THANK YOU, AgingHippie, for this response. I truly mean that. It shows exactly what's going on: tribalism. As for you assertion that I'm only here to harass Ryulong, I refuted that bullshit argument in the Coop case you removed. You also confirm the same for LogicMaster777. You don't like what he has to say, so instead of following the stated policy and somewhat enforced ethos of toleration of dissenting opinions, you block. As for the "doxxing", you have yet to explain how "doxxing" can be occurring in the Talk page when the article itself covers the very same issue. Chrimony (talk) 01:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Instead of repeatedly saying on talk, "User:[Redacted] is a (fill in the blank with privacy violation)", once or twice making reference to "the subject of this article" should make the point. nobs^{I was in Bagdad when u wer in dadsbag.} 02:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I banned that person, too. If we assume hypothetically that they weren't doxxing, they were told to stop. Narky "Reiterating" Sawtooth (Floof!~) 02:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh do get over yourself will you Chrimony? I've already explained to you at least twice that it's not just about LM getting hosted for free without actually contributing to RW (other than, as AH pointed out, using his moronic essays to give a tarnish of utter nuttery to RW), but also about LM clogging up talk pages with his "imaginary state"-BS and then whining here on the coop about not being humoured; yet you blithely blather on about sanctions against LM being "tribalism". Seriously? What next? Are you going to join with LM and claim that this is all a nefarious "statist" plot and "statheist" censorship? Have you actually read any of LM's rants? (Choose any one of them, they're all pretty much the same) 'Cause you sure as shit haven't tried to join in the (so far) futile pedagogical effort of trying to explain to LM why his ideas are moronic crankery, why he can't just redefine concepts to fit his conclusions, and why states aren't fucking imaginary or religions! You also seem to be standing pretty alone with the rest of your interpretations, let alone the sanctions you want to slap on AH. In short: You're probably wrong, so give it a fucking rest. ScepticWombat (talk) 02:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

So you want me to admit I'm wrong based on everybody being against me when AgingHippie admitted he acts based on tribalism? Whether I agree with any of LogicMaster777's writings on Talk pages is irrelevant. If you guys want to change your policy and ethos, then change it. Just don't pretend anymore that dissent is welcome here, even on Talk pages. Chrimony (talk) 03:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

What "dissent"? LogicMaster777 spams talkpages with something about how statists think that United States is a physical person. That isn't opposition to RationalWiki's viewpoints, that's fucking nuts. 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 03:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Dissent? Oh stick it in your arse, Chrimony. AH is a respected R'wikian and you're a tendentious bore on borrowed time. --MtD^{Notorious Sodomite} 03:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, Chrimony, which part of RW policy says you can clog up talk pages with your personal brand of crankery after you've already been told why you're wrong and keep doing it with impunity, not even incurring the minimum sanction of having said crank sections collapsed? And which policy says that bitching about it afterwards on the coop has to result in being humoured, rather than laughed at? Please do direct me to the relevant paragraph. Dissent is welcome, but ad nauseam arguments by assertion are not simply dissent. What next? Should we stop deleting/removing the various rants of the Cult of Satorn-variety from talk pages too because that would be stifling dissent? But yes, when everyone agrees that your case has little to no merit, it must be a sign of "tribalism", obviously... ScepticWombat (talk) 03:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

RationalWiki:Blocking policy : "It should be noted that adding what seems like gibberish or irrelevant information is not necessarily malicious; assume good faith. If it seems crazy, just copy it over to the talk page and ask the person to justify their addition."

Regarding the Coop, on this very page: "This page can be used for reporting cases of administrative abuse (abuse of sysop or moderator abilities such as blocking, page deletion, or user rights management), general abuse (such as trolling, wandalism, and personal attacks), and conflicts which cannot be solved through normal talk page discussion (such as longstanding edit wars or article content disputes). ... All editors are welcome to comment on the cases raised here, and to try to reach a consensus on any action to be taken."

How do you expect the Coop to run when a single user decides to be the judge, jury, and executioner?

Chrimony (talk) 04:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey Chrimony, did you notice that it didn't say that coop complaints have to be decided in the plaintiff's favour?

Did you notice the difference between "assume good faith" and the fact that I and others have already pointed out that LM is waaaay past good faith since he essentially just reposts the same stuff over and over?

Yes, it was AH who removed LM's coop complaint, so what? No one here disagrees with that decision exactly because it has become obvious to everyone but you (apparently) that LM's rants are not about debate or dissent in good faith, but about a personal "idée fixe" that states are religions.

Just for good measure, because it apparently escapes you: It does matter what the history behind a complaint is. LM has done nothing but behaving like an obnoxious troll, and as long as he stayed on his endless talk and user page, or only let his ranting spill over into his own essays, debates and their associated talk pages, he was given a free rein. It was only when he insisted on having the rants posted on the talk pages of various articles in addition to his personal, debate and essay pages, or uploaded files to RW with file names reflecting his brand of crankery that any sanctions were invoked and those amounted to warnings against this behaviour, collapsing the talk page sections and deletion of the files whose names made RW seem like a nest of cuckoo clocks short a couple of cogs and dials. No one disagreed with this. LM complained about being the victim of "statist/statheist" censorship and the complaint was dismissed. Some of us checked it and thought, cool that someone else removed that crap so I didn't have to. In short, no one disagreed with the removal either. So what exactly is your case, regarding LM? The first block coming on top of all of these antics, which was undone with a friendly "easy there", yet you think this merits de-sysopping? Really? Have you ever heard of proportionality?

It seems like you've simply randomly added 4 (other) incredibly weak cases to your own. None of us agree with any of your points. None but you think either the spirit or the letter of RW policies have been seriously breached. All but you agree that your complaint is simply spurious wikilawyering and that the worst sanction AH could possibly merit is a slap on the wrist as a friendly reminder to be more explicit and and descriptive when summarising why he's wielding the mop.

And yet you just keep banging on about this being a clear example of bias and tribalism. So, apparently, the rest of us only get the option of either agreeing with you or get derided as clearly being biased and in breach of RW policy and ideals. Yes, because there's no way you could possibly have the wrong end of the stick here, right? Ever heard about "heads I win, tails you lose"? Because that pretty much sums up the premise you seem to be trying to set up here. Get a freaking grip. ScepticWombat (talk) 05:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

"did you notice that it didn't say that coop complaints have to be decided in the plaintiff's favour?": Thanks for that vacuous observation. Did you notice I was talking about due process, letting other voices be heard, and not letting one user be judge, jury, and executioner?

"It seems like you've simply randomly added 4 (other) incredibly weak cases to your own.": Randomly? LogicMaster777's block was a day before mine with the reason "Just because" and further reasoning about having only decaf. The Coop cases that were unilaterally removed were all done within the past month. Two of those Coop cases involved Gamergate, one of which directly involved me because it was my 9 hour block by Ryulong that helped prompt the case (though worth noting I did not bring the case). The common theme here is a long-term and respected editor going off the rails and abusing his position as such because he has become intolerant of views outside his echo chamber.

"None of us agree with any of your points. ... All but you agree that your complaint is simply spurious wikilawyering": I'm sure Tielec01 will be glad to know you re-affirm what AgingHippie said: "Nobody who counts was sad to see that nonsense go." Tielec01 doesn't count when he wants a case he brought to the Coop to stay up for discussion instead of unilaterally removed right in the middle. He doesn't count when he says "Chrimony is right that we largely no longer live up to our community standards." Sorry Tielec01, you don't have tribe status.

Chrimony (talk) 09:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Chrimony, you're ignoring that several of us have already written that we tacitly assented to the removal and now we've done so outright. Your concern for "due process" would be a lot easier to swallow if you actually accepted the outcome of this due process. As it stands, it sounds far more like wikilawyering.

And the other coop cases were clearly resolved in a way that boded ill for yours, and they were weak as hell - nor have your actually spent any time on dealing with the reasons in favour of dismissing LM's case which have been mentioned several times. Adding a weak charge on top of another weak charge doesn't make either of them stronger. Quantity is not quality.

The patience with your wikilawyering might have been longer if you had actually done something beyond picking fights, but you're right, I did miss Tielec's comment because it came quite late and in a section I wasn't keeping tabs on - sorry about that. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about the rest, but I'd toast to 1, alright! Long live Ryulong, and may the drama flow from golden chalices!--Madman (talk) 04:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)The Madman

Is it the right time

...to suggest that we just shitcan Chrimony for good? I like a chew-toy as much as anyone, but even the best chew-toy eventually gets threadbare and starts leaking beans. And this thread is a whole lot of leaked beans. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 12:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Certainly you can suggest it, but you haven't put forward a compelling argument. Tielec01 (talk) 13:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Sterile continues to delete a page in my usespace

I would like to recreate John Duffield. To that end, I created an alternate version of the John Duffield article. Originally, I recreated the article; I realize that this was not the correct action and apologize. I then created an AFD page; I realize that this was not the correct action and apologize. I then created a post discussing recreation on Talk:John Duffield, which appears to be the correct action.

All of this would be unimportant, if Sterile did not repeatedly delete User:FuzzyCatPotato/John Duffield, on which I was attempting to change the article to make it acceptable for recreation. I believe that this is against current site policy:

• RW:CS#User_pages states: "An editor's user page, and other pages in their user space, is their personal space and they are free to do with it what they want (with common-sense-exceptions, such as patently offensive material, copyright violations or spam)." I do not believe that User:FuzzyCatPotato/John Duffield is "patently offensive material, copyright violations or spam", though I may be incorrect.
• RW:NEW#What_can_I_do_with_my_user_page.3F states: "You can put whatever you like on your user page. (With some obvious restrictions like obscenity, slander or racism.) Only you can edit your user page - unless you are arbitrarily convicted of vandalism in which case you will be put in the vandal category and your user page may be edited accordingly." I do not believe that User:FuzzyCatPotato/John Duffield contains "obscenity, slander or racism", though I may be incorrect.

So my question is: Can Sterile delete User:FuzzyCatPotato/John Duffield, if I choose to recreate it?

I bring this up at the coop only because Sterile stated, "Please do not respond, as I tire of you lawyering."

I apologize for the drama, wasted time, and wikilawyering. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 00:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The guy has posted here claiming libel. I say leave it alone, or put up a bond to cover all related legal fees and/or damages from any libel lawsuits incurred because of your article. Better yet, leave it alone. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 00:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

[2] Nutty Roux (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

This is unrelated, but it's something that RationalWiki doesn't have an official position on. If every statement in "my" article is cited, then is it libel, and are we at any threat of a libel suit? Is any threat of libel enough to prevent an article from existing? If any threat of libel is enough to prevent an article from existing, what should be done with stuff like NaturalNews or similar articles? Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 01:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Generally people have control over pages in their user space, but there are common sense exceptions & posting libel is obviously one of them. Fighting hard to restore something that nobody else seems to want & other people have cited as a possible legal problem doesn't seem like a sensible course of action. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

"are we at any threat of a libel suit?" The threat of a libel suit is not based on the content of the pages you create. The threat of a libel suit is in the person who launches such a suit. Remember, even if all the T's are crossed and all the I's are dotted, just getting to the part where a judge sees that and dismisses the suit is an expensive process. Even a frivolous suit will cost the actual people who are responsible for this place time and money. So why not just let this go. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 01:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

@Weaseloid:

Nobody seems to want: Dunno, Castaigne seems supportive and the discussion isn't finished, so more might support.

Libel: What's libelous about it? Nobody's said anything specific.

@AgingHippie:

If the threat is in the person, I again ask: "If any threat of libel is enough to prevent an article from existing, what should be done with stuff like NaturalNews [whose author has raised legal threats against detractors] or similar articles?" Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 02:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

If you think there are problems with that article, raise them on its talk page. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 02:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't. I'm asking what the difference is between the Natural News article and John Duffield article. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 03:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

You don't own the article. It's licensed by CC by SA, meaning it belongs to all the editors who worked on it, not just you, although you did not cite it when you copied it. Further you continue to go against all the other editors who unanimously voted against you and thumb them in your attempts to reverse that decision by recreating it and, by your own admission, continue to wiki lawyer, which you most certainly are not sorry about and then try to slime my name by taking it to the coop rather than discussing the content of the article, You mock an editor who is threatening to sue us in the article. Who's really the problem here? You are not the victim you pretend to be. Sterile (talk) 03:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not "my" article. Have I said so? Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 14:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

You've taken an article that people in the community worked on and then decided should be deleted and moved it to your user space with no history of the article or talk page and then claim it is untouchable. If that's not a claim of ownership, I don't know what else is. Sterile (talk) 14:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

How could and why should I have moved the history? I've never claimed the article is untouchable, only that it'd be nice if it wasn't deleted. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 14:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I again apologize for recreating the article. Afterward, I opened discussion on the article's talkpage to reform the proposed article so that it would pass muster.

If the proposed article is libelous or mocking, please quote it and I'll resolve it.

If I've "slimed" your name, I apologize. (You doubt sincerity. I can't fix that.) You explicitly said not to reply, but continued to delete the proposed article. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 03:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

You are not addressing the points about community consensus. You have, in fact, systematically stepped around them. The vote was to delete the article. Why are you so disrespectful? Sterile (talk) 03:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I've been pretty explicit in trying to get community consensus about an article which I feel is substantially different from what was originally discussed. First, I attempted to determine consensus on the AFD page; after that was rejected, I attempted to get consensus on the article's talkpage. Is this "sidestepping"? Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 04:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Remember when I suggested you make some changes to stop pissing people off, and instead of doing so, you kept doing the things that kept pissing people off? Yeah, that. Sterile is correct and sensible for continuing to delete the page, and you really need to stop with this. The community voted to delete the article. It should remain deleted. The end. - Grant (talk) 04:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Two things:

1. This "the article was voted to be deleted so it can never exist again" stuff some people are saying seems pretty silly.
2. The near-inviolability of userspace is a social convention that the powers that be are free to acknowledge or ignore. In this case, they've chosen the latter citing concerns for a libel suit. (Not unreasonable since the proposed article mentions threatening libel suits is kinda this guy's schtick.)

Fuzzy, I'd let this rest until John Duffield becomes notable enough to risk being sued by or you can somehow come up with solid evidence that he'll never follow up on his threats. (Neither is a likely scenario in the foreseeable future.)

*whooshes off again* 141.134.75.236 (talk) 05:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Nobody's saying point #1. The article was deleted and FCP immediately copied it into userspace. Now that some minor alterations have been made (none of which adequately address the reasons it was deleted in the first place), he's trying to push it to mainspace again. - Grant (talk) 07:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Robert's Rules of Order, admittedly not used here, would say a decision made by the community can only be reversed in a certain amount of time if 2/3 of the group votes to reconsider and the motion has to be made by someone who voted against the measure. You are asking us to reconsider something that has little change by one person who was invested enough in the article to be the only person to vote for keeping it again, why are you so disrespectful of this community? Basically you think the rules shouldn't apply to you any you can lawyer out of this vote. Sterile (talk) 07:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC).

Looking through the talkpage] of the John Duffield article, there is little that was done, other than dick-waving, to refute, even, the claims he was making about physics, let alone his claims of having been wronged by the tone of the article. This makes me very uneasy, because if it was that hard for editors here to make the case, to the man himself, about why he's a crank, then I dread what we could do if he actually sued us. I've not seen (nor do I care to see) what changes to the original article FCP had in mind. FCP (and a few others) did a great job on the aforementioned talkpage of baiting this guy to get even madder and, thus, throwing out the legal threats. Totally irresponsible, and an article written by the same rabble of people about the same man, with apparently only cosmetic changes to it (whether or not it's in mainspace or userspace) makes me come down hard on the side of those who say that this is an article that's too hot for RW to handle. The deletions of the John Duffield articles in both the mainspace and userspace were exactly the right thing to do, and FCP should cease trying to convince us otherwise. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 11:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

False; a motion to reconsider requires a simple majority. Landmartian (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Multi-response

@141:

When does somebody become important enough to risk a libel suit? Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 14:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

ALL DEFAMATORY AND LIBELOUS CONTENT MUST BECREMOVED. THERE IS NO NEGOTIATION HERE. The foundation is not taking risks on your behalf. Sterile (talk) 14:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I was responding to 141, who said "I'd let this rest until John Duffield becomes notable enough to risk being sued by". Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 14:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

It's subjective of course. Basically when he becomes notable enough that a clear majority of prominent contributors want an article about him? If he became as notable as, say, Richard Dawkins and he was spreading fake science theories, maybe the potential threat of a libel suit won't bother people that much? It's a hypothetical either way, and a very unlikely one at that. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course, at that point we could find enough reputable sources to minimize our liability. Right now, those don't exist.--TiaC (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

@GrantC:

If you don't think the proposed article fixes the previous one's errors, please tell me what specifically is still wrong. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 14:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

This comment still shows that you're fundamentally missing the point. It generally takes a lot to reverse a deletion so soon, and the community consensus is quite clearly (and has quite clearly been) against you on this, and yet you still fight. - Grant (talk) 17:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying that a lack of errors in the proposed article is enough to reverse a deletion. I'm asking you and people who oppose the proposed article to state specifically what is wrong with it. Very few have. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 17:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Plenty have, through this discussion and where it came up previously. You haven't adequately addressed those points, and you certainly haven't provided ample justification to reverse the deletion. - Grant (talk) 17:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Please show me where people have stated that something specific is wrong with the article, after which I haven't changed the article to match. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 17:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

At this point I almost think you're being deliberately obtuse. Your "fixes" aren't sufficient. I would recommend dropping this. - Grant (talk) 19:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

If the fixes aren't sufficient, where are the problems in the article? I'm not asking to be obtuse, I'm asking because I can't fix problems unless I know about them. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 19:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

@Sterile:

You say little change has occured. I disagree. Getting commnunity consensus again is relevant, and I've explicitly sought it. If consensus is that the proposed article is the same as the old and still not worthy of creation, then I will obey that decision; if not, then I hope you will. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 14:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

No. We voted. It is in the past. There is no future for this version of the article. You are trying tske something that has been decided and change it, explicitly disregarding community consensus. Do you not understand what the word NO means? I'm sorry for you if no one in your life has forced you to deal with a decision that is not in your favor. Sterile (talk) 14:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The proposed article is fundamentally not the same as the one the community voted on. The original article was 3kb, mentioned Duffield's qualifications, stalked Farsight's activity on forums, frequently called him crazy and a crank, asserted he's unable to answer questions, asserted he spammed scientists, asserted Deepak's publisher wouldn't touch his book, asserted he supports the militia movement and NWO conspiracies, asserted that he's unhinged, cited very few non-forum sources, and didn't even describe his ideas. The proposed article is 11kb, describes Duffield's qualifications, merely states that he's active online, lists his publications, describes at least some of his ideas, describes his style of quoting physicists, describes his litigation threats, and cites his interview and directly quotes him rather than citing a forum. I think the proposed article is different enough to merit another discussion. Where's the harm in doing so? Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 15:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

@RNS:

If you look at the proposed article, you'll see that I've removed every statement Duffield said was libel. If I "baited", I apologize; the goal was to find out and remove untrue and litigable statements, as I've done here and on the List of internet kooks. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 13:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

You make explicit reference to what the person of interest says in reference to this site about threats of suing.mif that's not baiting, I don't know what is. You lack judgment. Sterile (talk) 14:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

What would it take for you to admit defeat here, Fuzzy? It seems like everyone else is against you on this, but still you keep coming back with "yeah but—". Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 15:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

A consensus against recreation, after the proposed article is actually discussed. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 15:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I've deleted the article and taken away your sysop rights until you understand that a bunch of editors asking you not to do something means you should probably not do it. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

You know what I undeleted the page to do? To remove the "baiting" content that Sterile mentioned, after which I immediately attempted to redelete it; you got there half a second before I did. I would provide a link, but since I'm not sysop, I can't even access the deleted revision screen. Ah well. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 15:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Though by now I presume I won't be believed, and this will just be seen as trying to avoid the decision of the coop. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 16:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Revision histories are saved, even when an article is deleted. What does undeleting the article to remove the baiting actually accomplish? - Grant (talk) 17:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

If the article is that important to you, Fuzzy, you can always save the content on a Word document on your computer and edit it to your likings. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:15, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

So, there seem to be two issues here. First, is there a possible version of this article that we would want? Second, is FCP's version it? FCP is mainly addressing the second point by saying that he will make changes until it is deemed acceptable. Many editors object to the first issue. They say there's no reason to fight over this because he's really not all that important. I'm going to say that he's not notable enough for more than a paragraph on his ideas on the appropriate page. Therefore, FCP, it does not actually matter if your proposed article is not libelous, I still feel it's not a good thing for this wiki. Also, don't move potentially libelous content to your user space after it's deleted. (I could easily see something similar to this happening with other pages that were deleted for being badly written rather than off-mission. e.g. Carly Fiorina. Perhaps some mechanism or guideline could help avoid another fight like this in the future.) --TiaC (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Going to throw one more "Don't userspacify articles deleted for legal reasons(copyright would also count)" on the pile. Does not help. For the purposes of someone googling, there's no difference between example.com/badthing and example.org/user/badthing. Ikanreed (talk) 00:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Is it the right time

...to suggest that we just shitcan Chrimony for good? I like a chew-toy as much as anyone, but even the best chew-toy eventually gets threadbare and starts leaking beans. And this thread is a whole lot of leaked beans. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 12:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Certainly you can suggest it, but you haven't put forward a compelling argument. Tielec01 (talk) 13:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

* Single-purpose editor, that purpose being starting arguments around gamergate - as evidenced by the contribution log.

* Utter lack of any meaningful contribution, even under the widest possible definition - no interesting digressions in talk, no actual discussions of topics that can improve an article.

* Inability to address any issue, article- or complaint-related, in anything approaching a coherent manner - just repeats the same claims over and over again and ignores counter-arguments.

* Twice argued to get another editor banned for perceived infractions of rules; refusal to accept that their interpretation of both the rules and the events are flawed.

And of course the worst of all:

* Persistent and malicious refusal to create a user page.

Basically, what we have here is a typical shouty BoN with their knickers in enough of a twist to create an account purely to get around the protected status of Talk:GamerGate, whose only redeeming quality was the fun to be had in batting them from paw to paw. I'm not necessarily advocating the full banhammer, but no censure at all will inevitably lead to more of the same, including long, time-wasting complaints, for some time to come. Vandal bin, or a topic ban enforced with short-term bans (if anyone can be bothered to enforce it) might do the trick. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 13:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Technically arguing with people is something we actually do here. Saying "ha, no, fuck off" when he tries to play bureaucracy like a non-fuckwit is a minor annoyance in context. Blockable behaviour gets him blocked. He hasn't quite achieved "thanks Mikemikev fuck off" levels of annoyance as yet - David Gerard (talk) 13:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I guess the question I'm asking is "How long are we prepared to argue with them for?". I'm not invested in any particular outcome, tbh. I wouldn't call their complaint here non-fuckwittery, at least; merely their latest gambit in their drive to dick RW around. I doubt they are genuine in it. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 13:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

If you don't want to argue with them then don't. We might argue with someone forever if users choose to keep arguing. It's the crucible of Socratic discussion that forges strong arguments, not the familiar warmth of a circlejerk that so many users find comfort in. Tielec01 (talk) 14:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. 'Tisn't just contradiction. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 14:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

At some level, I can't help but feel that it's wrong to ban someone because they're argumentative and opinionated. Ikanreed (talk) 14:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

If it was just that, I wouldn't have bothered raising it. That's pretty much what we do here, after all. Kinda a wish I hadn't been half-way through an edit when the whole turdblossom was archived, I probably would have just let it lie. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 14:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any compelling reasons to start slapping sanctions on Chrimony. Sure he's a single-purpose editor who has tried his hand at wikilawyering, but so what? As far as I can see that's far from enough to merit any kind of sanctions. For what it's worth, I think that being shown to be an aggressive conspiracy-minded wikilawyer in a coop section in which you try to get another RW editor de-sysopped is punishment enough. Throwing oneself into the GG flamewars is bound to generate conflict (that's kind of the point) which, as David Gerard pointed out, is quite different from the systematic race-trolling of Mikemikev. If anyone doesn't like what Chrimony writes, tough luck, I'd suggest just ignoring him - just as we generally do with LM, btw. I really think it's setting the bar far too low to start invoking sanctions for attempted wikilawyering - especially when the attempt was resolved this quickly and unequivocally. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I might personally consider him a shithead, but he's delivering his shitheadedness the "right" way. Ikanreed (talk) 15:26, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

(EC) Fair. Seems like enough people are happy to continue cleaning up any resultant mess. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 15:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Ryulong and abuse of revision hiding

I'm sorry to bring him up again, but excessive revision hiding after argument is problematic. Using a mop to scrub mistakes and annoyances isn't the right way to go about things. I'm rethinking my past objections with desysopping. Anyone else want to weigh in? ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 21:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Yup. I'm not familiar with all that weeaboo bullshit and I'm not sure why he has all those ED bedwetters and wannabe rapists pursuing him around the internet but I think it might be better to take away the tools. --MtD^{Notorious Sodomite} 21:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Ya know, sometimes I wonder why you guys give everyone sysop rights if people're hardly allowed to use them (except for joke bans). Sure, if Ryulong revdels some stuff he said and later rewrote/rephrased, that's pretty secretive and potentially deceptive. Is it really harmful, though, if it's just a minor comment on a talkpage? RationalWiki has many unconventional conventions regarding sysop rights and while he's been on the wiki for some months now, I get the impression Ryulong hasn't learned all of them yet. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's fair. But... when people are telling you to stop overusing tools, you really should stop. (I overused the vandal bin, myself, once). ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 21:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Wait, it's looking like I misunderstood the order of events here. As long as Ryulong promises not to hide things, barring extreme cases, I'm gonna withdraw my concerns. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 21:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

This guy again? Look, just a few days ago I went all Rick Grimes for him on this very page, basically saying "don't fuck with my tribe, or I'll fuck with you." And I meant that. People who come here to troll him are the worst and won't be tolerated. At the same time, him and his article are taking up all a lot of bandwidth here in the Coop and elsewhere and causing the community a remarkable amount of grief. The actual RevDel isn't a huge deal -- no children were harmed, etc -- I'd just like to see a week go by without a Coop case or a prolonged talk page debate with his name all over it. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm with 141. This is a tiny incident. I vote for slap on the wrist. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 21:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Shut up Fuzzy. No one cares what you think. In my experience abusing ops is not a common thing. Most people seem to grok the whole "go easy with the banhammer thing". Ryulong seems to have a history of problems when it comes to wielding power. --MtD^{Notorious Sodomite} 21:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, definetly no consensus here then. Maybe the accused can allay our concerns about future abuse? ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 21:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Matty, that really added to the discussion.

If anyone wants to seriously propose a demotion from sysop, can they please draw up a list of abuses of sysop power that Ryulong has committed? 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 21:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

(EC) I don't like this kind of use of revision-delete, but this isn't much of a Chicken Coop case. This page is supposed to be for dealing with headless chicken mode, not minor irritations. Plus this is an issue where it's probably better to talk to Ryulong rather than about him. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel}

I wish he'd delete and revision hide the Chicken Coop. This page has become such a huge waste of time and yet another place for FCP to tell everyone what his opinion is. MtD is right dude, you never shut up. Nutty Roux (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you have nothing better to do than complain about me? Like, say, actually talk about whether Ryulong deserves demotion? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 22:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Probably not. Nutty Roux (talk) 23:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I warned you, did I not? --Madman (talk) 22:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)The Madman

Do I care. It's not about personality, legacy, or anything like that. And I should point out that I got important facts wrong in raising this coop concern. It's probably a non-issue for that reason. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 22:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm actually kind of impressed by Ryulong's dedication and ingenuity as this is page three (2 archives and current) where a good portion of the discussions are about something he's done. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

No, I do not think any action should be taken against Ryulong. I don't see his RevDel as problematic, and frankly I'd endorse him doing it again for the reasons that he did so. --Castaigne (talk) 22:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Given that OP says it's a non-issue and the rough consensus is for no action, can this coop be closed? FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 23:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

More Censorship Vandalism

I made a debate to debate the ethical implications of RationalWiki's censorship policies, and instantly the debate page was censored(deleted) by MieKal. Amazing the lengths "Rationalists" will go to to keep their cash cows in the dark.LogicMaster777 (talk) 17:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I'd like to reopen this coop, and instead raise the question of whether LogicMaster should be banned for intentionally(if badly) trying to sabotage the much-needed fund raiser. His fantasies of oppression are fine and dandy, but if we're willing to ban serious, if misguided, users for bringing legal threat to the organization, I think at least considering a ban for a non-contributor purposefully trying to sabotage the foundation in combating those problems is a good idea.

LogicMaster being completely unaware of the actual oppression of free speech represented by people suing organizations saying things they don't like, really ought to have shown restraint, even if he felt oppressed by us. I say working against the interests of maintaining online continuity is a valid reason for a long-term(6 month to permanent) ban.

A rein is a strap connecting the corner of a horse's mouth to the rider's hand(s). Reign is what a monarch does.

I further think there are no realistic mitigating circumstances to excuse this behavior. We've given him free-reign to post his off-mission stuff in relevant places, and removed his material only when working against that mission. Any other editors want to weigh in? ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 17:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm for it. This conspiracy concern troll has more or less ceased to be amusing. Dispense with him at will. --Castaigne (talk) 17:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

You lot have more patience than me - I'd have liked to have blocked him yonks ago. Scream!! (talk) 17:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

[EC] Not banworthy. Ignore him, other than to collapse/archive/delete anything outside his designated playpen(s). Alec Sanderson (talk) 17:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

When he's encouraging pillocks on the foundation's appeal page I think he's gone too far. He's an arch troll really. Scream!! (talk) 17:54, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. Being a persistent annoyance, hard of thinking, is not worthy of a block. Trying to scare off the donors might be, especially if he does it any more. Alec Sanderson (talk) 18:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

My tolerance of him ran out a while ago, but I'll behave and let cooler, more patient heads rule this one. I may also be in a more agitated state due to life pressures. Just know that I see little-to-no benefit to keeping him around; he has no new thoughts to contribute and has proven himself incapable of learning or self-correction. Anyone who wishes to explore discussions of Giant Frog versus "Statism" can just read the few novels' worth of discussion that have happened since Thanksgiving.--Maxus (talk) 18:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

(EC) I am for vandal binning him. He really hasn't provided anything constructive to the site so far, he posts his off topic rants in every possible place when he feels ignored, and takes a significant amount of time from on purpose editors with these silly things for almost 6 months. If he really wants this crap online he can make his own site...I've watched a 12 year old put up a web server on a Raspberry Pi in a few hours. If he has the time to spend hours repeatedly editing the same thing over and over then he can do that. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

What rule do you allege I have broken?LogicMaster777 (talk) 18:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

It is not about rules. It is about most of the mob being tired of your bullshit. Alec Sanderson (talk) 18:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

So then,since it's not about rules would it be fare to say you are proposing to ban others arbitrarily with no regard for the rules of the site?LogicMaster777 (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I challenge you to show me one off topic post by me to back your allegation. Give me one specific factual instance of an "off-topic" rant.LogicMaster777 (talk) 18:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Your post immediately above, where you attempt a distraction about "others" being banned arbitrarily. This is about you, not them. Stick to the point. Alec Sanderson (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

First one I plucked out at random: going on about "statheism" in a topic about Andrew Schlafly? Sure, it starts on topic, but it goes into a tangential rant on "secret agendas" on what is essentially a four-sentence paragraph. My two cents, at least. Noir LeSable (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

You see, what your cartoon fails to take into account is that this is a 501c which takes donations from the public at large. And the organization has taken certain policy positions.LogicMaster777 (talk) 18:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

It is beholden to donators to honor those policies.LogicMaster777 (talk) 18:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Or else it can be construed as donor fraud.LogicMaster777 (talk) 18:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah but according to you, government and regulations don't exist. Who's gonna stop big bad us? Santa? CorruptUser (talk) 18:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Since these corporate entities do not physically exist, I don't take your articles of faith seriously. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

(EC2)The donators donate to the company that operates the base functions of a user-generated website. They are the ones that operate under certain rules, but you are not interacting with anyone that is under these corporate guidelines. You are instead interacting with the "mob" editors of the website, and the decisions by these are not binding. If you have any problems with any actions or decisions made I'm sure you are free to take it up with the corporation behind it, if you believe corporations exist. Be that as it may, I too place my vote in with the mob. +1 much annoying. Trick (talk) 18:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

You are acting as the de-facto policy makers of the site. The site has the "official" PR policy, and then it has the "real" de-facto policy. Delegating to you its defacto policy making does not absolve the foundation.LogicMaster777 (talk) 18:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't believe words and syntax exist, since they are a creation of the human mind and disappear if we all die off. Prove to me they exist before we take your complaints seriously. CorruptUser (talk) 18:28, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Policies are statheist and by engaging in your wikilawyering about policy, you reveal yourself as a STATHEIST! CLEANSE THE UNCLEAN! --Castaigne (talk) 18:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I think LM has already been punished. He was blocked as a punishment for trying to sabotage the donation drive with the same "If I don't get my way it's censorship!"-nonsense he has been warned about before. This was the one transgression that I think merited a block. His creation of another "imaginary state/statheism"-article was quickly dealt with and I don't think it merited a block (or, at most, a <½ hour "warning block") anyway.
As anyone who has followed the LM débâcle is probably aware, I'm not a fan of either LM's nonsense or his behaviour. Still, I do think ignoring him is probably as effective as a block, and I don't want to risk creating another Mikemikev necessitating the whole annoying IP-Whac-A-Mole business. LM's trolling is generally a minor annoyance; it tends to be confined to "opinionspace" (debates, essays and LM's talk page) where it belongs and only occasionally spills over into mainspace and these instances are easily reverted. I do think that it might be prudent to keep LM in the vandal bin for a while (a day or two perhaps) which will require him to (hopefully) give a bit more consideration to the issues at hand before responding. ScepticWombat (talk) 19:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Brake applied

For those who didn't see it in recent changes, I got tired of edit conflicts, and have binned LM777. Alec Sanderson (talk) 18:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Lol edit conflicts? You mean where I create a page and you guys delete it? What edit conflicts? You have a big imagination apparently - whatever helps you justify your admin abuse I guess. Now you make up false stories of vandalism with these mythical "edit conflicts". What a joke. You misused your admin status and made up the story about vandalism to cover for your misconduct. LogicMaster777 (talk) 21:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh Fuck off, LM Scream!! (talk) 21:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Somebody else want to explain to LM what an edit conflict is? I don't feel like it, for obvious reasons. Alec Sanderson (talk) 21:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Here. Scream!! (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit Conflict(EC) where several people try to edit the same section at once and all but the first get an error and have to copy paste their stuff again. Its a pain. On pages where their is some contentious issue ther may be lots of EC as everyone tries to have their wisdom heard. and what scream said.198.98.209.150 (talk) 22:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Legal threats, or pompous legalese?

On his talk page, LM has skated too close to accusing the mob of "tortious donor fraud." It is buried in a bulky dump of copypasta from this coop, but there it is. Time to form a consensus to ban this prat? Alec Sanderson (talk) 19:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, bringing legal threats as part of an editing dispute is instant ban material. Here? I dunno. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 20:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Since he couldn't argue his way out of a chalk circle, I doubt the dangerousness of the threat. Bicycle^wheel 21:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind a piece of torte. hmm tasty Hamster (talk) 22:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

But is it sachertorte? Must be sachertorte. --Castaigne (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I think I look better with remnants of Schwarzwälder Kirschtorte smeared around my cake hole. Alec Sanderson (talk) 03:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

LogicMaster doesn't understand something

I don't have time to sue your site and I find the legal system quite distasteful so I would really rather not waste time on drawn out protracted adventures in legal land. My intention isn't necessarily to sue this site into insolvency. My intention is to hopefully bring some issues to light, which are mostly being ignored or skirted around. Instead of addressing the issues: duplicitous censorship policies and practices of RW, the "RMF" "entity", and the contingent of defacto policy makers ( the self-identified "mob" ), as well as the ethical implications relating to the donation drive the response has been ad hominem directed at the messenger. My hope was that by bringing these issues to light, they would be honestly and earnestly addressed in good faith. I do plan to notify the RMF at the mailing address directly of my concerns regarding the ethical implications of accepting donations while simultaneously holding two censorship policies: the "official" one donors are told are the real policies, and the defacto actual "real" policies, as well as a concerted pattern and practice of censoring material so as to shield potential donors from learning the truth about the rampant ideological censorship (which is another concern - by calling itself a 501c the RMF is representing itself as non-political - if it represents itself as such while holding a secret, undisclosed ideological censorship agenda which runs contrary to official policy it raises several areas of ethical concern).LogicMaster777 (talk) 20:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Just checking (I'm not a USian), 501C does not preclude any political bias. Scream!! (talk) 20:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

He may be referring to this section:

...all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity....

Read on. "Contributions" do not necessarily need to be "cash contributions". As an educational foundation the RMF needs to look closely at this language:

... voter education or registration activities constitute prohibited participation or intervention if there is evidence of bias that would:
. Favor one candidate over another
Oppose a candidate in some manner
Have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates

nobs^{I was in Bagdad when u wer in dadsbag.} 22:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

As has been stated MANY times, you are NOT being censored - you have spouted your drivel on many pages - most of your own origination (is that what I mean?). In any case this site has rules of which a major one is "Mobocracy" - the "Mob" generally has decided to restrict you to non-mainspace sections. So suck it. Scream!! (talk) 20:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not even going to restrict LM from mainspace if he actually makes edits that don't involve his "states are imaginary religions"-crankery. LM isn't barred from mainspace per se, but if he posts crankery in mainspace it gets deleted (or possibly turned into a page debunking said crankery, but since LM appears to be rather alone with his particular flavour, it's probably too obscure to merit that) - just like any other crankery. ScepticWombat (talk) 22:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

@Logicmaster: is the point you're trying to make that donations are being used not only for operating costs but for legal fees? Can't legal fees be considered operating costs, albeit a potentially a large variable operating cost, quite unpredictable and hard to budget and plan for? nobs^{I was in Bagdad when u wer in dadsbag.} 22:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

as someone above pointed out the Fundraiser thing says clearly in English that donations are for a few things including a legal defense fund. So LM is wrong again, still or for the first time. Hamster (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

No, LM is not objecting to a possible commingling of technical operating funds and a legal defense fund. He is complaining that Rational(hic)Wiki is being unfair to his views by suppressing them, while soliciting funds in support of a neutral apolitical site. As usual, his understanding is flawed. Alec Sanderson (talk) 22:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to call it "CU's Law"; 'If we can see your complaints about censorship, you're wrong'. Or maybe, 'The amount of censorship actually taking place is inversely proportional to the visible complaints about being censored'. CorruptUser (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I like CU's Law. As for Alec Sanderson's and nobs' remarks, I'd say that combined, they illustrate how, where and why LM is wrong (again) about 501(c)s and political bias. The IRS is quite clear that 501(c)s can't engage in political campaigning, whereas LM thinks 501(c)s have to be politically neutral. These are not the same things at all. The IRS guys are quite clear that this is about preventing 501(c)s from "directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office." Thus, the prohibition pertains to partisan campaigning not political bias. To make LM's claim even sillier, the bias he has claimed is that RW is "statist/statheist" which I suspect even the best lawyer will be hard pressed to match with something that "(a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates".

So, LM apparently doesn't understand the 501(c) rules either, and, given that his censorship claims (as per CU's Law and easily observable fact) are bunk, his claim that donors are being misled by RW having a "hidden censorship policy" is equally ludicrous. ScepticWombat (talk) 23:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The site itself does not explicitly make the claim that it is "neutral" nor do I imply that anyone should ever be held to such a standard of neutrality (As I do not believe there is any reason to presume that the mythical "neutral 3rd party" exists as anything more than a lofty, yet likely unattainable ideal) nor do I claim it is being used as campaign propaganda.

(That said, filing it as a 501c3 rather than 501c4 would lead one to presume it's not principally a political organization).

I think the overall impression one would get from the explicit policies is that it is a rationalist pov. Rationalist pov means, I would think(do I presume too much?):

1. Any and all claims are subject to challenge as to: are they supported by evidence and what is that evidence.

2. Claims not supported by evidence should be identified as hypothesis or opinion rather than proclaimed as dogmatic truths.

3. Facts and Evidence should not be censored for ideological denialism.

4. Factual assertions should not be deleted due to ideological or denialist purposes, but only on the grounds of: highly questionable , unreliable, or refuted facts, or highly questionable, unreliable or refuted evidence. If the facts ARE presumably true, relevant and supported by evidence, they should not be deleted simply for denialist censorship.

5. Calling a user names or ad hominems directed at the user personally is not a rational reason to delete material where there is no specific rational dispute made as to the material.

Would you not agree these principles would be implied in the explicit policies of "open constructive dialog" from a "rationalist pov"?LogicMaster777 (talk) 23:53, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

You clearly have an obsession with "Religion of State", an inability to interact socially with others, an inability to grasp anything not physically present, and IDK what else. Are you like this in real life? I know it's hard to hear, but your life isn't going to get better doing what you are doing. Please, speak with a therapist. Don't do it for us; do it for you. CorruptUser (talk) 00:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The WP article is pretty good and pretty clear on the matter (believe it or not), having been denied 501(c)(3) status (educational), one cannot turn around and reapply for 501(c)(4) status (activist). So the question is what protection Sec 230 of the Internet Decency Act afford to the RMF in light of IRC Sec. 501(c)(3) that states, "public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office" in reading the Paulbots and associated articles. nobs^{I was in Bagdad when u wer in dadsbag.} 00:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Response to Corrupt User: http://thelibertycaucus.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/an-ad-hominem-attack-your-argument-must-be-really-strong-300x300.jpg

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/5d/5d82f77a3a05ba911bb3b9a34d0282e5f492148d92d99fc7dc961afb012909ab.jpg

Response to Rob Yeah, good point. Alot of the Ron Paul Bashing would probably be considered "illegal" by IRS lawyers - (No I am not trying to "threaten" to report RW or sue RW). Do you disagree that the principles I enumerate would be implied by the explicit policies?LogicMaster777 (talk) 01:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not an Ad Hominom. I'm not saying you are wrong because you need help, I'm saying you need help. Stop deflecting and ask yourself, are you happy with your situation? Are you really happy? Is this what you want? Stop insulting others and actually think about it. CorruptUser (talk) 02:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

(ec)Fundamentally, there probably is no Sec. 230 protection for a non-profit when it comes to tax law, but it's an interesting question. By allowing attacks on candidates for office (and as I read the law, a candidate for office includes local dog catcher), a 501(c)(3) violates its "educational" purpose and passes over into "activism". This is why Sec 527 Superpacs were created, to allow "issue advocacy", without overhauling Sec 501, and to discourage negative campaigning and personal attacks. Points 3 and 4 you cited above, I can't hardly believe would even be in question. nobs^{I was in Bagdad when u wer in dadsbag.} 03:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Corrupt User, Sorry if anyone felt I insulted them. That's not what I intended. Am I happy with what situation? If you mean the persecution and censorship, not really, that's what I'm trying to resolve. RobSmith,I would have thought that too, but have encountered this alternate defacto censorship policy which to me seems quite contradictory to the official policies. My concern is that donors should know the "real" rules of the site, and it should be transparent. Does anyone really disagree on this basic point?LogicMaster777 (talk) 03:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

That's not the question I asked. I asked if you were happy with your real life. Your life in Meatspace. The world outside the tubes. Do you act this way there? Do you connect with people? Are you happy with your social life. Really, for your own sake, you need to think about the answers. CorruptUser (talk) 05:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I've created a forum discussion for the 501(c)-thing here, please move the discussion of that topic there, since it's really at most tangential to this coop case. And feel to chip in with any opinions on the matter. ScepticWombat (talk) 05:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the issues raised here should NOT be discussed further on site but rather referred to the board for them to take legal advice on the matter. Hamster (talk) 23:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Should we do something about LM or not?

This discussion is going into all kinds of places that shouldn't be in the coop, so let's decide if it should stay or not: "Are we doing to actually coop LM? "

I think we should just ban him: We've established our willingness to allow those we disagree with to exist here and our willingness to debate them, but he has established his lack of desire to actually debate us. His only intent seems to be to spread around his "the government is religion" and "the state doesn't exist" viewpoint, with no other purpose (let alone one beneficial to RW), and I don't see why we need to continue to play host to it. This isn't Rob, it's just somebody wanting free hosting.--Miekal 04:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Leave them infinitely vandalbinned, it should slow them down enough to make their inanity bearable. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 05:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

You still haven't even articulated any site policy violations. If you just ban people because you don't agree with something they said, how do you rationalize that with saying you don't engage in arbitrary ideological censorship? By banning or binning, you would only prove my point to be correct. No articulable violation here has even been alleged. This is pure persecutory censorship and admin abuse. Banning or binning, either way you prove me right that this site and its de facto decision makers, the self-described "mob" engages in arbitrary and punitive ideological censorship. Unless you can articulate an actual violation I have committed. To my knowledge, I have not done such.LogicMaster777 (talk) 05:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll repeat my position here: No ban, LM will be removed from the vandal bin in a day or so and we'll take it from there (we might have to put him back in the vandal bin). I don't think that trying to get your personal brand of crankiness posted on mainspace is banworthy in and of itself, though it might eventually land you a short "punishment block" of a couple of days, tops. Posting endless diatribes in opinionspace completely fine by me, while trying to interfere with a donation drive and making more or less veiled threats about litigation is not okay, but LM has already received one punishment for the latter. ScepticWombat (talk) 05:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Moving debate on statism to my talk page on my article - if someone wants it could be moved to the debate page.LogicMaster777 (talk) 22:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I have to say LM has not really appeared on my radar so I'll refrain from comment on his contributions but when I were a lad and all this round here were fields threatening legal action against a website's owners for what amounts to little more than not getting your own way was considered a banning offence. That said... the grounds for LM's legal threats are so nefarious, half-baked and ludicrous that they do at least have some comedy value.Longdog (talk) 10:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Just wait until he reports us to the Florida Dept of Agriculture and Consumer Services.... Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 12:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I didn't expect the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services! Bicycle^wheel 12:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Nobody expects the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer ServicesLongdog (talk) 12:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Longdog's assessment that LM's convoluted and indirect legal threats are simply contrived, far out dingbattery and that's why I don't think they merit the insta-ban that threatening legal action tends to bring. Thus, I stand by my " 'nough for now"-vote. ScepticWombat (talk) 13:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

An increasingly-long sojourn in the vandal bin each time something wacky spills onto mainspace seems fitting. With luck, the time spent in the bin will cut down on the number of small adjustments even when he's out of it. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 18:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Just noting, vandal binning doesn't have a "expires by" feature, so un-binning him would require a sysop to care. FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 20:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

It would require a sysop who he hasn't irritated enough to stop caring. Bicycle^wheel 21:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd pull him out of the bin again if need be - although I might leave him in the bin for longer than the ca. 48 hours get got this time around. ScepticWombat (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

For Dawkins' sake leave him in there, this page needs to return to dormancy - David Gerard (talk) 23:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I think David's comment is right insofar as it's archiving time for this case against LM and there doesn't seem to be a great clamour for further sanctions right now. After unbinning, LM has returned to his usual opinionspace posting which, while tedious, is not something that merits punishment. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Nutty Roux

Continued from User talk:Nutty Roux

Unilaterally blocked two users, Longdog and FuzzyCatPotato indefinitely for little reason without calling in the mob. He provided little to no justification for it. What's particularly baffling is that this was done just before he left a rambling, semi-coherent diatribe about culture of entitlement or something. While it's kind of beating a dead horse considering he seems to have gone for good, I'm still summoning him to the coop because this is a textbook case of abuse of powers. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{With just a head. And a burlap sack for a body.} 18:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

While it was done for the best of ends, the means don't always justify that. Neither is it really justified to go nuclear in every interaction. It's certainly disturbing behavior by someone who very clearly identifies themselves as a professional at legal conflicts acting in direct violation of established boundaries. Well, for the peasants.

As far as I have witnessed everyone is onboard with the ends and understands the problem. If it's fine for him to attack anyone in radius, or who questions it, there won't be anyone left to edit. Let alone anyone left to donate to the next legal defense. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

OK... I'll say this and leave it (for the time being at least)... What pissed me off more than anything else was not the block but the fact that Nutty Roux also blocked me from editing my own talk page (against the rules which say "Usually, blocked users will be able to edit their own userpage and talkpage. This checkbox should almost never be checked, because blocked users should always be allowed to protest their block") leaving me no way to protest except to reboot my modem to get a new IP and post as a BoN. He subsequently blocked that IP... And the one after that. Hey-ho!Longdog (talk) 18:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, not cool is too mild a pronouncement on that. Of course, that sort of behavior makes me spitting mad, so there you go. --Castaigne (talk) 19:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

This is a pattern of behavior with Nutty. It is not meet that we have a superuser in a high position who can just go on a tear like this and suffer no consequences for continued bad behavior. I agree this is an abuse of power; I would recommend he be stripped of status and permissions and reduced to my non-sysop level. (Note - do not sysop me.) I would be willing to discuss banning periods as well, if that should be deemed necessary. --Castaigne (talk) 19:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

correct me if I am wrong but a permanent ban by Nutty lasts as long as it takes another sysop to say WTF! and change it. yrs maybe he should have posted to the coop and waited for the mob to collect and make a decision eventually but if the purpose was to stop some conduct he certainly acheived that. This is sounding a lot like HCM so just stop. As for contact doesn't RW have a Facebook page or twitter that you could use ? Hamster (talk) 19:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The argument that nothing is actually that bad because "it can just be undone when somebody cares to undo it" is a poor excuse to not do even the slightest wrist slap for the abusing of powers, which is what Nutty did, good cause or not. Nutty needs to play by the same rules as all of us, otherwise we shouldn't even have the rules if people can just choose to ignore them when they aren't convenient.--Miekal 19:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Nutty also set their sysoprevoke bit, which IIRC takes a moderator (or tech) to undo. SmartFeller (talk) 19:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

And even if this is just a HCM, it isn't going to be the last one on the subject of Nutty (lest he did actually leave) and him using his powers as he see's fit, it's a recurring event. Sweeping it under a rug isn't going to solve the underlying issue people have about this.--Miekal 19:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what an appropriate response to Nutty is. He has certainly already received the minimal punishment of public ridicule on his own talk page, but I guess that at least a short term confiscation of his mop is in order. Also, in response to Hamster's comment above, I was the second sysop to change Nutty's block of FCP as Nutty had reinstated the permaban after another sysop had already gone "WTF?" and changed it. In addition, Nutty has neither started a coop case nor any other section to explain himself or appeal for retroactive mob approval, nor has he responded to the posts on his talk page. I wonder if the block of FCP was some sort of "slamming the door behind me"-tantrum? ScepticWombat (talk) 19:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

This is possible, but I have not seen anyone that I know to be friends with him IRL comment on the matter.

Do we have any method of getting a confirmation from someone if this is the case? --Castaigne (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

(EC) I agree that Castaigne's options seem inappropriate in scale. However, you can look back at previous coops of people who go around banning others because they feel like it have that power at least threated to be taken away if they do not stop...such as Ryulong and AgingHippie in the last month. Even though it really doesn't do much harm and it was temporary in order to reiterate the point that is not good behavior. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

(EC) For such a longstanding and useful editor, this is terribly intemperate and against the grain of our usual standards, but not untypical of his behaviour recently. I suggest removal of all powers until he behaves, assuming his Leaving And Never Coming Back is as permanent as anyone else's. In the meantime, I've undone NR's user rights outbursts. Bicycle^wheel

19:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

imo Nutty is an aggressive, obnoxious, unpleasant individual, so this kind of behavior does not surprize me ^{— Unsigned, by: 198.58.109.179 / talk / contribs 23:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)}

Not quite neutral: There's a pathos to these actions that the whole cooping has overlooked. But the actions themselves were still clearly abusive. And in spite of the dogpile here, no one in this discussion actually has the rights to de-moderate a user, so even complete consensus would be pretty mechanically useless. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps not yet, but being cooped it becomes formal discussion. We can then issue a vote and I'm pretty sure someone with those powers will make stick what the mob decides.

Or maybe not, and if not, then we can all pretend to be Madame Defarge knitting over in the corner. ;) --Castaigne (talk) 19:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

where are these RULES posted ? I know of some guidelines so apart from mob rule by the few people that show up who is the final arbitrator ? The only way to enforce anything would be in Nuttys case to desysop and remove all his rights permanently. Who supports that ? Hamster (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I have this feeling that some point a straw poll is going to pop up around here to answer that question, but I personally feel so shitty about the situation that I have no urge to push this forward. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 20:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Guidelines, Rules, whatever we choose to call them, they are there for a reason. Letting users just ignore them because they find them less convenient than being Dredd is a terrible idea that will set a very bad precedent, regardless of how good a cause they are doing it for and how easy it is to undo the action. As for the second question, i imagine some of the people here probably, i'd be ok with just convincing nutty to stop abusing his powers..--Miekal 20:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I certainly weren't advocating anything as drastic as a permaban or permanent desysopping. More like a temporary (short) revocation of Nutty's ability to go, well, nuts, or at least limiting the consequences of this erratic behaviour for other editors. At maximum a coop sanctioned short term block that Nutty will be able to undo himself (as a signal that his recent behaviour is seriously uncool). Still, if Nutty remains incommunicado, I suggest we leave it at the current punishment: public (mob) ridicule. ScepticWombat (talk) 20:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Cue the ridicule: BURN THE ROUX!!! The soup will never be the same! Ahh that's a terrible joke, though. Trick (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

(EC)Look, there's something real motivating Nutty's outburst. I think multiple people know that, too. It's clear it has Nutty pissed, really pissed, and I understand that. Real people insisted on having the right to risk lawsuits against innocent people (Trent, for example) because they seem to believe they're entitled. That, I think, is where Nutty came from. I'm not bothered by what he actually did (I'll be in the minority of that opinion), but consider his legitimate motive as mitigation. ^{— Unsigned, by: MarmotHead / talk / contribs}

(RC) you arent alone. the permanent block was 10 hours. get over it. Nutty isnt a new member and has actual legal knowledge that should be listened to. you need 216 votes for a majority so start collecting votes. Hamster (talk) 20:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

(EC) I think everyone is on board and understands that. However, that doesn't give people the right to act like Gordon Ramsey in every interaction. It's counter productive because instead of editing out issues that have been buried in the volume of words on RW....everyone is doing this. Actual tantrums by leadership are also not endearing to be around for anyone in an organization. Especially one that is dependent on people's free time and donations. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

His tech rights should disappear, even though he did have a history of responsible, useful activity. I do NOT think he would be such a moron as to use those powerz to wreck the wiki (something like that has happened before) but I do not think it is wise to leave that possibility open, given his recent volatility. I'm not ready to go "O what a noble mind is here o'erthrown" on him just yet, but he has given some reasons for doubt. SmartFeller (talk) 20:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

We should at least take away the sharp things for a while, but not permanently. On a wiki, anything done can be undone, unless the RMF sells the site off to World Net Daily, or something. Bicycle^wheel 20:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The indentation is too damn high

If Nutty needs punishment, removing tech and/or mod seems best. The blocks were easily undone. The sysoprevoke took time and the attention of a mod. Plus, techs can (somewhat) hurt RW, if they go nuts. Nutty has a history of acting in RW's interests, which (esp. with Nutty's favorite, defamation) often requires sysop. Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 21:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion he's a loose cannon. There are undoubtedly times when he has served the site well. But there are many others when he has blatantly and repeatedly ignored guidelines or site opinions. And he has always managed to get away with it as he claims to be especially important to the site. At some point he needs to be held to account.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 19:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

What he said. Scream!! (talk) 19:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Legal defense fund discussion

I can understand being upset about legal threats to RW, but there are nutcases who have a persecution complex and think anything even slightly negative is grounds for legal action--who will sue to try to get a mention of certain incidents/activities from their past suppressed. And RW right now seems to be caving to them because it doesn't have the money. Can RWF set up a Legal Defense patreon or something? I'm not a rich fellow by any means, but I do have disposable income and I'd give up ten dollars of it a check if it'll go into the great big "In Case of Lawsuits" cookie jar, against the day when someone makes good on a legal threat. I'm sure there's other people who feel the same way. And if the money means RW can keep on striving to tell it like it is, that's well-spent to me. --Maxus (talk) 19:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, if only there was some sort fundraiser or some way to donate to the RMF . . . Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

That's a great point - but a different issue. You might want to bring it up at at the saloon bar for instance. :-) This thread is about Nutty's actions.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 19:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Why, is that fundraiser for servers and site maintenance? I do believe it is! Is someone wanting to help make sure RWF can eventually take an actual legal challenge without having to call Popehat or someone similar, a separate funding issue? Why, I do believe they are! (and PayPal's giving me the runaround on top of that, the bastards). --Maxus (talk) 20:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Trent sez: "[W]e have to contend with multiple individuals trying to shut us down. Last we year we had two lawsuits filed against us, and this year we have another. We cannot continue to take risk and be the resource everyone wants if we cannot both fund our infrastructure and create a legal defense nest egg." Seems to me this is a general money pot, not just for infrastructure, but I'm probably wrong. Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 20:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

It's both. We're way too small to have tied donations (which are a fucking PITA and we're never doing them if I have any say in it) - David Gerard (talk) 18:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Resolution

It's about time that we took the temperature of the debate and closed this, I think. ^{— Unsigned, by: ikanreed / talk / contribs} 20:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

No action

1. Aceⁱ⁹ 02:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
2. It all seems a bit unnecessary. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
3. Yep. MarmotHead (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
4. If he's LANCB'd then what's the point. Another stalwart falls. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 23:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
5. I've spoken with him off-Wiki, and he has zero intention of returning. Thus, this whole debate is little more than dick wagging and saber rattling against somebody who doesn't care anyways, and all that is before we even come to my opinion on the matter. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 08:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

   If he's no intention of returning then where's the harm in de-teching-modding-sysoping him? We've all seen LANCBs returning. Scream!! (talk) 12:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

6. Leave well enough alone. If Nutty returns and starts to misbehave again, then there's a good case for action, given this coop. I'm not a fan of posturing "just in case". ScepticWombat (talk) 13:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

   Hypothetical: Someone linkspams 1000 pages. We're about to block. They say: "Wait! I'm leaving the wiki and never coming back! Don't ban me!" They go inactive for a week. Should we block them, "just in case", or cross our fingers and hope for the best? FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 14:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

   Nope. That's different. Nutty has a real history of positive contributions and shows a real care for RW. His actions were aimed at minimizing RW's legal risk and, thus, were aimed at preserving RW. Intent matters, even if the action went beyond some folk's comfort zone. Yes, you were affected this last time and that makes it feel more personal to you. I get that. I still disagree. MarmotHead (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

   My point is that his leaving should not affect this decision; only his actions.

   Nutty does have positive contributions. How would removing tech make any future contributions any less positive? He'd still have sysop, and could do almost everything necessary for legal reasons.

   And no, I don't care about this affecting me. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 20:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

7. Grant (talk) 14:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
8. This is inane. This entire discussion is the people who've been thinking this is their issue, when they're the problem, protesting the actions of the people who are the actual targets of action (e.g. Nutty, 2014 board member as well as being someone who knows what the fuck he's talking about). What the fuck are you idiots on. As one of the people with a great big target painted on him for 2015, I earnestly beg you to just get a clue and shut the fuck up - David Gerard (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

   I agree with your core point, but I think that actions taken in the interest of the board be clearly stated as such, even if it's on an individual prerogative. Even if the details have to be withheld for various reasons, small considerations for editors like a ban reason would be appreciated. I feel like in such an environment, I'd probably have reversed any community unbanning decision that happened. The minor procedural issues here make it hard to maintain a sense of sanity and continuity. (I'm probably the only one who feels this way) ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

   Huh? Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

   He banned the user with a totally empty ban reason and was incommunicado afterwards. That was problematic. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

   Not only that but Nutty reinstated the ban (incl. the cannot edit own talk page block) after it was first reversed and once again without any coop case or explanation Correction: and with a bogus explanation (FCP had started a debate which, though problematic, was clearly not trying to unilaterally draft RW legal policy as alleged by Nutty). These were, to me, aggravating circumstances and I voted for no further action only because Nutty seems to have left and so effectively blocked himself far more completely than any punishment could. Had he remained, I'd have voted for a brief punishment (revocation of privileges for a short time, or a block Nutty could undo himself) as mentioned above. But to act as this is all completely frivolous persecution of Nutty seems to me to go against the actual record of his actions. ScepticWombat (talk) 19:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

   ^. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 20:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

   He did state the ban reason when he reinstated it after I reverted it... and it was really fucking stupid. Apparently, wikilawyering is now a bannable offence. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{My wishes over their airspace} 20:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

   The bannee wrote the article that got the suit against Trent - David Gerard (talk) 23:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

   Which bannee? FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 23:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

   You're awfully involved in this debate to not know this. Longdog. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 23:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

   I knew Longdog was the other bannee. Wanted to make sure I wasn't the lawsuit-bringer. ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 23:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

   If David is referring to Longdog, then we're talking past each other, since Raysenn and I are talking about the banning of the tuber. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

   Let's see... Longdog hasn't edited the article he got banned for editing since September of the past year (and didn't insist on publishing the material, unlike Brx), and no action was taken then except for being reverted. Fuzzy Cat Potato was merely wikilawyering about what we should do with libel threats, and took no course of action that could threaten RW. Yeah, I don't see any permaban material in either case. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{The obscure search engine of subvocalising!} 18:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

9. Damo^Hi 06:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
10. It's been literally forever in Internet time. Statute of limitations has expired. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC
11. Fuck no. Me 'n Ace agree, therefore I must be in error. nobs^{I was in Bagdad when u wer swirling in yur Dads' bag.} 04:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Slap on the wrist

1. He's said he's not coming back, I believe him. He had good reasons for what he did. And finally, he was too hostile, and failed to adequately explain his actions, so slap on the wrist for that. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 20:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

   JW, what good reasons? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 22:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

   What does "slap on the wrist" even mean here? Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

   Verbal reprimand, you can see it as "time served" if you want. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 13:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Desysop and detech

[INELIGIBLE] Am I allowed to vote here? From what I understand, he's been a particularly troublesome user. It doesn't make sense to give him the keys to the automobile--Tanis (talk) 21:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's a vote, so much as a straw-poll to gauge overall sentiment. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 21:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

That seems like fiddling the system. Community Standards are quite clear on who can vote on a "penalty vote" to penalise a user. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Tanis, you have only 41 edits, 34 short of the needed 75. If you wanna vote, get cracking. ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 22:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

1. got be de-teched & de-modded too. So it's up to mods & TMT. Scream!! (talk) 21:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
2. De-tech. De-mod. --Castaigne (talk) 22:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
3. De-tech, de-mod and also make him swallow 1000 needles. --|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Everyone gets hugged and turns into Tang} 22:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
4. De-tech. De-mod. --Th. Bernhard_{Das Leben ist ein Prozeß, den man verliert, was man auch tut und wer man auch ist.} 06:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
5. De-tech. De-mod. LANCB notwithstanding, someone who flies off the handle once is likely to do so again. Better to minimise the mischief he can cause if he decides his previous Parthian shot was inadequate. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 15:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
6. Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 21:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
7. ATTICA,ATTICA!--Madman (talk) 02:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)The Madman
8. This is nothing new for Nutty Roux; it puts me in mind of a similar incident in 2012 when he was charged with abusing his block rights and, at some length, pled guilty. He has also, with regard to some of his recent actions, admitted to the Board that he was out of line. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Detech but not desysop

1. De-tech, not as any kind of penalty, but as a precaution. He does not seem to be a mod. If his flounce turns out to be temporary, then see if he even wants to continue doing tech stuff, and discuss further. Alec Sanderson (talk) 23:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

   To be clear, I see no need to de-sysop him. Alec Sanderson (talk) 15:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

   Believe a "tech" can mod himself. Scream!! (talk) 12:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

2. been thinking about my vote on this one & mostly went towards no action: but because when he was reversed in his shenanigans, he did it again but added it so only mods and techs could undo it. He can get tech back if he returns and wants it back, but there has to be an understabding you can't just use higher powers to enforce your will on the wikI when others disagree with you. --Miekal 04:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Goat

Currently 7 for nothing, 1 for slap, 6 for desys & detech, 7 (incl. d&d) for detech. The coop's tied between nothing and detech. What to do? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 01:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll add my name to the nothing list. So now we do nothing. Aceⁱ⁹ 02:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. Leave it a day then archive? ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 02:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Dammit, Madman. It's tied, again. In the event of a reaaalllly long tie, what to do? FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 03:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Some sort of compromise? |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Judges not by color but by dankness of memes} 03:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Do nothing. It needs a majority in favour of an action for that action to take place. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 06:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

It's been 9 for nothing, 1 for slap, 8 for desys & detech, 10 (incl. d&d) for detech for a bit over 24 hours. Can we just do the detech &/or archive this? ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 15:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I would note that presumably ikanreed's vote for "slap" suggests he doesn't want detech. I'm not sure the result of this vote presents a clear consensus to do anything other than archive it. - Grant (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

(EC) It's not really enough a consensus, and we should probably default to no action. I still think there's enough of risk to merit taking precautionary measures, but it's moot if the LANCB sticks. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 15:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Not the first time Nutty's LANCB. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{I'm sorry, dear. I'm reading Pokemon horror stories for the internet.} 03:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Do nothing.

Desys and detech would be like impeaching a U.S. President (in terms of rights and privileges), to bring such charges requires "high crimes and misdemeanors" then a trial, then a decision, such decision requires a .666 majority.

This doesn't meet that level. C®ackeЯ 01:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

RW:CS#Common_guidelines: "In policy votes and penalty votes dealing with a user's removal from the site (temporarily or permanently), a positive option (an option that is not "nay" or "none of the above") must accrue a two-thirds majority of votes to pass. In all other types of penalty votes, a positive option must accrue a simple majority of votes to pass." Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 02:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, it looks as if the guideline falls short of its goat goal of Justice. Shirley formerly trustworthy Senior Janitors Grade "Johnny-mop" and above get some sort of Special Dispensation? C®ackeЯ 03:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Yep. Hence, archive time. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 03:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

At least three of the "do nothing" votes are based wholly or partly on the fact that Nutty is presently LNCB. However Nutty has a history of leaving and actually coming back. Will we need to start this again when he returns as the reason for the "do nothing" votes will have then changed?--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 07:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure, if anyone cares then. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 07:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

That's partly why I thought detech was a good idea - let him earn the demotion again if he returns. The potential loss from leaving things as is is much greater than the potential loss for a precautionary removal of privileges. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 10:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Ryulong

Persistent issuing of /16 rangeblock because of something happening on some other website. Someone talk some sense into him and then give him his mop back. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 21:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

You clearly did not read all of this prior discussion. You just swooped in because you saw me doing something you personally don't like.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Is the fact you desysopped me solely because it's a rangeblock which you seem to not like or what?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

If it's a spambot network, I don't see a problem with keeping it blocked. Why is it an issue? --Castaigne (talk) 21:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

AgingHippie's desysopped me because I performed a rangeblock. It apparently has nothing to do with the reason I placed the block but simply because it was a rangeblock.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

It also appears the IP on this range used to harass me was also unblocked.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm aware. I've read the discussion. That is why I am asking; if that rangeblock is from an anonymous/spambot service, why not keep it blocked? I'm not interested in having spambots here. And is it in the best interests of RW for spambots to be here?

As for anyone that harasses you, well, we'll just do what we normally do about that. --Castaigne (talk) 21:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Can we not call apparent humans bots? PacWalker 21:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

It probably should remain blocked but that's not what appears to be AgingHippie's point in desysopping me as per his talk page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

He hasn't made a reply yet, either here or on his Talk Page, so I'd wait until he does so we can see what his point is.--Castaigne (talk) 21:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Range blocks are unprecedented here. You want to implement them, draft a policy, post it in the bar, and get a consensus from the community. "Ruylong and Gerard say so" isn't how we make policy. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 21:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

But if the reasoning here is "it sounds like a good idea to have this block kept" amongst not just Gerard but a bunch of other people who had spoken to me earlier why did you ignore all of that and the other explanations given and desysop?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I mean, lack of precedence should not outweigh situational utility.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps so, but you unprecedented blocked 65k addresses, and when someone said "wait, wut?" you were a dick about it. You brought this on yourself. Carpetsmoker (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

What (s)he said. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 22:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

So two people have an issue with the rangeblock. I already had a discussion about it with other people who inherently didn't have a problem and that's reason enough for me to not be trusted with the ability to mop here? I'm being proactive in preventing abuse from this network seeing as one IP that you unblocked AgingHippie was being used to abuse me here. It seems I only suddenly become unworthy of a mop here when I piss off one person who doesn't like how I crossed off one particular T and didn't dot an I correctly.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Where was this discussion? If you say "on my talk page" guess what: We don't have policy discussions on individual editors' talk pages. I don't follow your talk page. A lot of editors don't. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 22:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Is my blocking of this range of IP addresses entirely owned by a company that handles dedicated servers and globally blocked over at Wikimedia websites for housing open proxy services such a danger to the infrastructure of RationalWiki that I don't deserve a block button?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

No, but your willingness to take a discussion on your talk page that involved a handful of users as a rationale for doing something that's not been done before in 8 years and that other users showed a degree of hesitancy about and undid you because of that hesitance is. Draft a policy. Take it to the bar. get a consensus. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 22:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The hesitancy was minimal and it was only when you brought it up that it became this.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

There were about six users involved in that discussion. On a page nobody necessarily follows. Not a consensus, in any meaningful use of the term. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 22:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with the rangeblock. I didn't look closely enough at that and am agnostic about it. I have an issue with you being a complete dick about it when AgingHippy said this was a very strange & unprecedented thing to do. What *I* would have done is to carefully explain my motivations, and to make sure that I'm open to discussion about it by ending it with "Please correct me if I'm wrong :-)" or the like. And certainly *not* by (and I quote) "Would you fucking trust me on this? Christ"... Your reply bordered on being hostile. *THIS* is the issue. *NOT* the block as such. Carpetsmoker (talk) 22:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I gave an answer. It was not desired. The block was undone. I felt incensed that I have to go through this constantly when I intend for the best here but there's an unwritten rule that no one bothers to tell me aboutu ntil they feel I have broken it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The looooooooong thread on rangeblocking (now branching into what is doxxing or not) has been moved to a more relevant forum, namely: RationalWiki talk:Community Standards following repeated objections to using the coop for hammering out such consensuses on policy.ScepticWombat (talk) 15:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Any need to sanction Ryulong or can we archive now?

Okay, since I've moved the policy discussions on the desirability (or not) of rangeblocking and what constitutes doxxing to the Community Standards talk page are there any reason not to archive this coop case?
In other words, are anyone suggesting sanctions against Ryulong (no one seems to have done so until now), because otherwise this coop case seems to have run its course. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Ask AgingHippie; he brought it up originally. FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 15:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I would believe his "talk sense, return mop" intent to have been fulfilled, but seeking his input first seems like the proper action nonetheless. PacWalker 15:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, it makes sense to wait for the greying weed to pitch in. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

He's pitched, and is against sanctions. It's rainbows and bunnies here in HCMland, everyone. Archive time. FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 22:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

He should be doxed as punishment. Ghost (talk) 23:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

LogicMaster seems to be up to his pseudolegal threats again

Apparently, LM has returned to his posturing and making veiled legal threats and WatcherIntheDark has dished out a block of 3.6 days. Is this a fitting punishment (also considering LM's history)? ScepticWombat (talk) 09:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Yup

1. but possibly not long enuff? Scream!! (talk) 11:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
2. I'd have made it longer if I thought the mob would tolerate it. WatcherIntheDark (talk) 11:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
3. Crank. Brings little of value to the project. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 12:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
4. Deluded, thinks he has a "contract" with the RMF. Alec Sanderson (talk) 13:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

   You know, I can think of a reason or two why he might have chosen contract law for this threat instead of any other sort... (no, I am not saying he has one with the RMF) PacWalker 13:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

5. We've proven our tolerance and willingness to let others stay here - but he is abusing that welcome to vomit terrible all over TP's--Miekal 13:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
6. He can learn not everything is ideologically motivated. --Maxus (talk) 16:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
7. WP blocks for legal threats; we should, too. FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 16:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

   They do so pending the resolution of those threats. Theoretically, you can threaten to sue, sue, win or lose, and come back and edit. I haven't heard of it happening even on the big wiki. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 21:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

   When do they consider a threat "resolved" if it's not acted upon? PacWalker 21:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

   They remain blocked "while legal threats are outstanding". We could ban and allow talkpage edits until they say they've dropped the threat. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 22:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

   That would solve nothing. --Miekal 22:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

   I hate to say it, but the only edit I want him making to that mess involves an archive or seven. PacWalker 22:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

   @Miekal: Yep. Hence why we should just block for a predetermined set of time (maybe 3.6 days) whenever it happens and see if they threaten again. FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 22:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

8. Had it coming.--Madman (talk) 19:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)The Madman
9. Indubitably. --Castaigne (talk) 19:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Nope

1. No. Many of those who oppose him have some sort of denialism and are incapable of supporting their opposition with sound logic. See http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/User:LogicMaster_777#The_3_reactions--FedTruther (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

   I have personally refuted that argument on the user's page and continue to see it as clearly false. Also, please learn to use wikilinks. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 20:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

   Your account is less than three months old, yes? 107.77.94.124 (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

   Relevant link, in case FedTruther is wondering why their vote got struck. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

   FedTruther is (probably) not an LM sock, but damn that (ineligible) vote could have fooled me. ScepticWombat (talk) 21:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

   However, 107.77.94.124 was (this time anyhow; it isn't static) a PacWalker sock, for clarity's sake. PacWalker 21:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Goat

• For reference, my vandalism was removal of a picture of a penny that was used inconsistently with this policy, which, unlike his whining, has the actual law behind it. As for "religiously-motivated" vandalism, apparently he's pulling the "anti-my crap is Statan-worshiping evil" card.^{— Unsigned, by: PacWalker / talk / contribs}

  Asserting that people that acknowledge the authority of a government are inherently religious was kinda his shtick from the getgo, though. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 16:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

• As a purely technical/legal question, How does LM's use of the qualifier, if, affect making a legal threat? If he is indeed blocked, can that action be construed as a tacit admission his complaint has some merit? nobs^{I was in Bagdad when u wer swirling in yur Dads' bag.} 18:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

  Nothing he says has any merit.--Miekal 18:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

  My sketchy understanding: This coop is not empowered to enter into contracts on behalf of the RMF, and no contract between LBSM777 and the RMF presently exists; therefore, claim is without merit regardless of this decision. Anyone more knowledgeable want to clear this up? PacWalker 22:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

• The problem I have with LM is not that he has the stupid beliefs that he has, but that he is using all the hard work that Ratwikians have done to create the site, to fund it, to spread the word, and to make Rationalwiki as well know on the intertubes as it is, in order to latch on to it in order to get his stupid beliefs more exposure. Without doing any work for the rest of the site. And then he has the nerve to threaten the rest of us. Really, if it wasn't for Ratwik, he'd have to pay for his own website to host his own crappy little blog that no one would ever read. CorruptUser (talk) 22:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

  "PAy" is a strong word for the myriad of free hosting he could use. Wikia could always do with another dead wiki, afterall--Miekal 22:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)