RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive55

Pbfreespace3 (yet again)

“”I hereby request that I be taken out of the vandal bin. I've been in it for a month, and you haven't seen any bad behavior from me during that time. Quite frankly, I think I was put there in a bit of a fevered time. You know how things can sometimes get in the chicken coop. I think it will do more good than harm for me to be taken out, so I ask that you have mercy.

—PBfreespace3

Remember when Pbfreespace3 asked to be unbinned because he was being good? Well he's being annoying again by bringing past drama to the mod election's campaign page. What should be done with Pbfreespace3?—CheeseburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 04:00, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

It is inappropriate to remember past disputes that moderator candidates were involved in, how? The drama he brought there, appropriate or not, is dwarfed by exactly this. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 05:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Hm, that's a good point. I suppose you're right. Though, I do believe that PBfreespace3 could at least act more maturely because he is showing signs of his previous self. While I do agree that you are right that the content that he is presenting is acceptable in the context, I argue that the tone that he presents in not appropriate. Perhaps considering PBfreespace3's future should be considered when he presents an extending period of undignified tone.—CheeseburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 06:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I wish it to be known to all that I do not believe a person's 'tone' should determine one's 'future' on this website. Instead, I advance that the validity of one's arguments and statements should be the primary determining factor as to whether or not a user is punished by the community. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 06:49, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

*user hat* He's being polite, if annoying. Leave him be, I say. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 06:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Though let's be honest, some users on the site could be less aggressive and calm down because some talkpage content that I see I find painful to read.—CheeseburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 07:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

What the coop is for

"The chicken coop is for the avoidance, containment and resolution of cases of Headless Chicken Mode (HCM)."

We're literally nowhere near HCM. Archive this discussion. Thanks. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Archiving.-【ＤｉａｍｏｎｄＤｉｓｃ１】 (talk) 18:32, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Levi Ackerman

Levi Ackerman has fully engaged headless chicken mode. But first I do realize that I might have overreacted and let emotion overcome me on a couple of occasions. I am willing to point them out: Edit-protected Levi Ackerman's talkpage and 10 minute ban. If you want to argue an abuse of power, this is like going 5 miles over the speed limit; however, I acknowledge a fault on my side, thus I am creating a coop case. So, I request you accept my cheap words of apology

In any case, here's exmaples of headless chicken mode by Levi Ackerman.

• Editing warring on numerous occasions:
  • Blogosphere
  • What is going on in the world
  • Saloon Bar
• Concern trolling
  • To weaseloid
  • About an article Not Lev, see below. ScepticWombat (talk) 14:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • To FCP
  • Main_Page
  • Saloon bar #1
  • Saloon bar #2

Some dirt:

• Previous bans:
  • Sysop revoked
  • Previously banned for edit warring

—CheeseburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 08:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Uhmm, the guy concern trolling about deepity definitely isn't Levi.--JorisEnter (talk) 10:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Joris is definitely correct about the deepity AFD not being Levi (that would be Rational1 who may be annoying but not coop-worthy), so I've struck that entry from the list. Personally, I think Levi losing his mop is enough. That way he can be either binned or short-term blocked if he goes overboard later on. I'm not sure if Levi is deliberately baiting other editors or just have an obnoxiously aggressive way of responding when challenged. Anyway, I don't think he has been misbehaving that badly, compared to some of the other coop cases. So, no mop, case closed, as far as I'm concerned. ScepticWombat (talk) 14:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Now I see the violence inherrent in the system

I notice that Reverend Black Percy is blocking people for disagreeing with him about how articles should look - I reference [1], and [2]. Is this how we do things around here now? I was under the impression that people don't get blocked for non-vandalism, as enshrined in RationalWiki:Blocking_policy, which states "Blocking should only be used if somebody is maliciously editing a page or pages, as explained below." Arguing that ZooGuard, first edit 12 April 2010 is trying to make the wiki worse seems a stretch. Let's not do things like this. Hipocrite (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Eeeh, I don't think this is a coopable offense. Wheel-wars have a long tradition on RW. Now, if RBP had changed my user rights to make the block stick, it would have been an entirely different matter.

As for the incident in question, for the record: I didn't blank the page - I just removed the bloated list of examples, leaving the rest of the article intact. Both Stopped clock and Inverse stopped clock has had problems with their example lists for a very long time.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I reference "Undoing moderator blocks is a worse idea," which implies that undoing it is rights-strippable. Hipocrite (talk) 16:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Next time, start with a polite "Hey, that's not cool." Then, when that doesn't work, coop away over ambiguously threatening statements. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 16:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Fine. Hipocrite (talk) 16:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Legal threats

Moved here from the Bar by Rebekka (talk) The white nationalist/Alt Righter racialist pseudo-scientist nutjob John Fuerst showed up on his talk page disputing the fact he is a pseudo-scientist: in his view racialism is "sensible" and "scientific", while he denies being either a white nationalist or part of the Alt Right. I provided several quotes (his own words) that clearly show him to be a white nationalist, but instead he focuses on one aspect of the white nationalism article he says he doesn't agree with, i.e. "a national identity" based on "whiteness". However, Fuerst claims to oppose "non-white" immigration into the US and supports anti-Semitic canards popular among white nationalists, e.g. a cabal of Jews or a "Zionist lobby" is secretly behind "non-white" immigration to western countries and he claims these are destroying the "white Christian" US. There's a link to a number of his comments like this compiled at the source below:

http://right-here-in-britain.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/john-fuerst.html

Aside from this, we know his racialist writings are promoted on Stormfront and he has various blogs dedicated to racialism; shares links to far-right or Alt-right organisations; in one post he recommends Counter Currents - white nationalist publisher. All this is pretty conclusive he is a white nationalist, but he still denies this and appears to be posting legal threats on his talk, complaining of "defamation" and posting a legal "fair notice".

As for John being a pseudo-scientist, for those that don't know he publishes his "research" (if you can call it that) in two racialist pseudo-journals founded by Emil O. W. Kirkegaard (read his entry for an overview, aside from being a racialist, Kirkeggard is a paedophilia apologist and is the idiot involved in doxing personal data from 70,000 OKcupid users). These journals are not formally peer-reviewed, instead Kirkegaard invented his own process of peer-review and all referees for his journals are racialists. Its therefore like a creationist journal, where creationists review submissions from creationists - being 100% biased and lacking impartiality; Kirkeagard's journals for example only publish articles that support racialism, he's never published an alternative viewpoint i.e. the actual scientific consensus races don't exist. The referees for his journal submissions also include people like the huge anti-Semite and director of the far right American Freedom Party Kevin MacDonald; John Fuerst's paper "The Nature of Race" was reviewed pre-publication by MacDonald.

Anyway, is there any chance a sysop or a higher-ranking admin on this website that can go over the talk etc?

Lastly, just to point out, John Fuerst's main page is locked and I only responded to him on the provisional talk page. I never myself made edits on his main article. However I stand by everything I said and backed up with evidence on his Talk page.Welliver (talk) 14:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer, but I don't think Fuerst has grounds for a lawsuit. It would be helpful however if some clear evidence that "Chuck" is Fuerst was given on his main page. Bongolian (talk) 02:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

OK, so does anyone who is a lawyer think he has a case? RoninMacbeth (talk) 19:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikilawyer, ho! @David Gerard Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

It's my opinion that once someone starts making legal threats against RationalWiki and/or any contributor, the conversation is over. I'm in complete agreement with what is stated in specific guidance on this site. The person making the threats should be pointed to the RationalWiki Legal FAQ, the discussion is over, and any discussion of whether or not the person has a case or not is counterproductive. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 21:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Guys can someone please explain what on earth is going on? Fuerst who is a far-right/white nationalist and hard-core racist (self-describing himself as a racialist, arguing "racialism is sensible" etcetc) is now removing all this from his article. The article no longer even points out he is a white nationalist/racialist or pseudo-scientist after he intimidated a sysop with a bogus legal threat. Please just take a look at the guy: John Fuerst (Ulster Institute for Social Research) http://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=QEy6h1AAAAAJ&hl=en That "institute" is a racist institute founded by Richard Lynn, that received $50,000 (£33,000) from the Pioneer Fund: "Recent Pioneer grantees have included white supremacist Jared Taylor and Pioneer Fund board members Rushton and Richard Lynn, who runs the one-man Ulster Institute for Social Research and has argued that blacks have a "psychopathic" personality." https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/pioneer-fund. Nearly of Fuerst's papers are also published in either the Open Psych pseudo-journals (set up by Emil) or the white supremacist Mankind Quarterly. Take a look here at the sort of publications the institute publishes: http://www.ulsterinstitute.org/ Furthermore if you click on the google scholar you will see 60+ citations as if scientists are citing Fuerst. However this is all deception: virtually all the citations are by Emil O. W. Kirkegaard who co-authored and publishes Fuersts papers. So they cite/reference each others work in their own papers dozens of times to abuse the google scholar citation index to make it seem scientists actually take their work serious.Welliver (talk) 02:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The article is toned down, yes; however, it's more sourced and backed up. Feel free to add back in that he's a psuedoscientist because you can edit the article, no? Is the guy scum? Yeah. Just make sure that this information doesn't deter from factual reporting.—CheeseburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 04:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

In the words of the RBP:

We are not interested in seeing anyone 'snark up the page some extra' (basically going: "Fuck you, Fuerst!"). What matters is documenting Fuerst's own words and letting his shitty views speak for themselves.

The article to date does a decent job doing this; it has some dialogue but most of it is his words.—CheeseburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 04:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Let's archive this

It's clear that "Chuck" made thinly veiled legal threats by complaining about "defamation" and posting a "fair notice" as the original poster in this thread stated. However, for better or worse, the community continues to engage this asshole and as a result the article appears to have been improved somewhat. "Chuck" also removed the "fair notice" text in a subsequent edit, so perhaps he realized it was stupid to make legal threats in the first place. Regardless, the situation remains contained to the article's talk page and doesn't appear to be approaching the headless-chicken-mode level. I recommend closing this coop since no one has actually proposed any action the community should take on this issue outside what's being done now. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 17:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Koidevelopment

I think Koi is too heavy handed with blocks, so we need to block him. I'm being serious, just look at some of the blocks he's made. HCM Time (talk) 02:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok bud. Vive Liberté! 02:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Provide evidence. You're the one suggesting he be blocked, we don't have to dig through his block log. RoninMacbeth (talk) 23:42, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

RW doesn't have an "assume good faith" policy. That said: Assume good faith. Proving abuse is hard -- don't hate right out the gate. That said: Koi's blocks on Special:BlockList are hardly insane. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 06:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Problem with vandal

This discussion was moved here from RationalWiki:Technical support.

Tea Sagan has threatened on a other user's talk page to bring people on this site to vandalize the Jimmy Dore page (to make it harder to remove his bad edits, a guy did the same thing on Dore's Wikipedia page). It would help if you would just block him since all of his edits have been him removing sourced information that he disagrees with. He's been persistently vandalizing the Jimmy Dore page to the point where it keeps getting locked and he shows no signs of stopping. Jaydogg1994 (talk) 07:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

If he does, then.we'll block him. But I'm not sure this is really Coop-worthy. RoninMacbeth (talk) 14:47, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Agree. This is not coop-worthy unless and until there is a potentially actionable offense. Making threats against a page on Jimmy Dore is not actionable. If there is vandalism, we take the usual steps: blocking, vandal bin. If there's an unresolved editor conflict, then perhaps the coop. Bongolian (talk) 02:11, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

It's not really about him making threats as much as it's about the fact that all of his edits have been vandalism and blanking, He hasn't added anything useful to the site and has insulted other editors. Jaydogg1994 (talk) 08:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Tea Sagan's edits are generally not constructive. But this does not rise to a coop issue. Blocking and/or vandal bin should be used if the person continues in this manner. Bongolian (talk) 17:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)