RationalWiki:Chicken coop
(Undo revision 908309 by 86.47.65.140 (talk) make your own blog, you'll get full freedom of speech there.) |
m (Protected "RationalWiki:Chicken coop": boring troll ([edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 17:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (expires 17:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)))) |
Revision as of 17:08, 10 November 2011
The chicken coop is for the avoidance, containment and resolution of cases of Headless Chicken Mode (HCM). Despite the name, this tends to be serious business.
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).
Please try to resolve conflicts with other editors directly through discussion on their user talk page before reporting them at the chicken coop. If you do report an editor's behaviour here, please leave a message on their talk page to alert them to this, so that they have a chance to discuss their actions here.
All editors are welcome to comment on the cases raised here, and to try to reach a consensus on any action to be taken. If no consensus can be reached, and the HCM seems to be escalating moderators are expected to take some action.
Contents |
My take on the above
Given the 2:1 ration in favour of letting Nx keep his post, I think it's clear that that's what the consensus will be. That said, it's less of a ringing endorsement than the numbers might suggest. A number of people have voted to let him keep the mod powers not out of clear support for his illegal cowboy antics, but because of procedural concerns re: replacement, and a few others have said that what Nx did was wrong and they wish he wouldn't do it again. I hope they're right, but I figure they're wrong. I really wish he had dialed it back instead of doubling down on his decision to police the wiki as he sees fit instead of doing the job that he was chosen to do. I am confident we'll be back here soon, but given the numbers, I see no real point in dragging the vote out much longer, and propose the matter be closed until the next time Nx craps all over his commitment to the community. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 23:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to agree. But nevertheless didn't we just decide that these sorts of votes are supposed to run for at least a week? Wěǎšěǐǒǐď
Methinks it is a Weasel 23:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- It's all ad hoc. Can we just admit that? steriletalk 23:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- I wish I had never even brought it up. I should have just let Brx and UHM express their utterly bullshit claims of offense stand. Or alternatively I should have let Nx moderate how he sees fit. Aceace 23:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- I was flaming you and not whinning about anything except your bullshit, hypocisy and stupidity. Now stop the strawmanning me into one with brx and shut the fuck up. --★uːʤɱ atheist 01:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- I wish I had never even brought it up. I should have just let Brx and UHM express their utterly bullshit claims of offense stand. Or alternatively I should have let Nx moderate how he sees fit. Aceace 23:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- It's all ad hoc. Can we just admit that? steriletalk 23:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- There might be people who want to see this vote through, so let's give them a chance to speak up, but for my part I'm fine with closing the vote.
Acer Blue 02:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
The real problem
The real problem is that there are a lot of people who can't seem to be able to give it a fucking rest. The discussion which was basically a catalyst for the recent fiasco was one of the most inconsequential things this wiki has ever seen, but everyone involved had to prod one another over such meaningless drivel, escalating absolutely nothing into something. At any point, someone, anyone, could have just said "whatever" and been done. But no, it had to go on until for some reason a 30 minute block seemed to have been deemed necessary, and later on one for months, followed by some heavy-handed moderating kicking up a storm again after the dust seemed to have finally settled. At some point just admit to yourselves that what someone is saying just isn't important and simply ignore it. This isn't directed at anyone in particular, but is worth a bit of consideration by everyone. End of rant. DickTurpis (talk) 03:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- I think the real problem is that people are not wearing enough hats. Aceace 03:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- That could be true too. Now where the hell is my fez? DickTurpis (talk) 03:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- Fez? Go back to Russia, Muslim. I wear a foam-dome that has been adapted to take a keg. Hurts my neck so I can only wear it when lying down. Aceace 03:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- BLASPHEMY! The only foam hats allowed are those of foam which are shaped in the form of a cheese wedge! --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 05:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- Fez? Go back to Russia, Muslim. I wear a foam-dome that has been adapted to take a keg. Hurts my neck so I can only wear it when lying down. Aceace 03:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- That could be true too. Now where the hell is my fez? DickTurpis (talk) 03:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
*poof!* --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 10:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
SuspectedReplicant
SuspectedReplicant repeatedly posted personal information about Nx, first in an edit comment here and then three times to his userpage.
Nx desysopped SuspectedReplicant and blocked him indefinitely. AD then commuted the block to three years.
This is a unique case because the exhibits are necessarily hidden from public view. The nature of the sensitive information revealed was Nx's real name.
As he has shown no indication that he is willing to cease posting this information, the injunctive block currently in place should last throughout the resolution of this case. If SuspectedReplicant would like to present a defense, he should email me or another moderator and his comments will be posted here.
Acer Blue 21:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Discussion
In my opinion, a two-month ban and revokation of sysop rights is a good penalty.
Acer Blue 21:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Two months seem a bit short. --★uːʤɱ heretic 21:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- I have never been a fan of long bans.
Acer Blue 21:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Somebody--I'm assuming it was also SR, posted similar information at both RWW and CP. Again, no links because the links would simply reproduce the offence. That's a pretty blatant example of across-the-board trolling, not an isolated incident. Someone would have pretty damn well convince me he wasn't going to repeat such a dick move before I let him back into the community. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 21:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed. I'm not stuck on three years, but two months is far too short for such aggressive, flagrant personal attacks. This is one of only a few rules we take seriously, and SR is breaking it repeatedly and with malice. At least six months.--
talk
21:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- I would find six months acceptable.
Acer Blue 21:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) He's only been coming here to stir up trouble, of late. IMHO three years should be fine, unless he convincingly repents--"Shut up, Brx." 21:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- What did Uncle Ho get for making death threats? - π
21:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Three months, but in this case we have a very specific rule to apply.
Acer Blue 21:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Is anyone opposed to six months?--
talk
21:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- It's been just a half an hour, but I'd hazard a guess that six months is what we'll be voting on.
Acer Blue 22:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Six is not bad, just twice the length of a block for a death threat seems inconsistent. My only concern is that once blocked, he is going to go MC and come back and post it every few weeks. Oh well to late now, he will do it any way. - π
22:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Six is not bad, just twice the length of a block for a death threat seems inconsistent. My only concern is that once blocked, he is going to go MC and come back and post it every few weeks. Oh well to late now, he will do it any way. - π
- It's been just a half an hour, but I'd hazard a guess that six months is what we'll be voting on.
- Is anyone opposed to six months?--
- What did Uncle Ho get for making death threats? - π
- I would find six months acceptable.
- Indeed. I'm not stuck on three years, but two months is far too short for such aggressive, flagrant personal attacks. This is one of only a few rules we take seriously, and SR is breaking it repeatedly and with malice. At least six months.--
- Somebody--I'm assuming it was also SR, posted similar information at both RWW and CP. Again, no links because the links would simply reproduce the offence. That's a pretty blatant example of across-the-board trolling, not an isolated incident. Someone would have pretty damn well convince me he wasn't going to repeat such a dick move before I let him back into the community. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 21:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- I have never been a fan of long bans.
For the record, this appears to have been in retaliation for Nx allegedly revealing SuspectedReplicant's IP range, which is also in violation of the privacy standards as cited above (unless SR has elsewhere identified himself with those IPs or vice versa). Not saying this justifies what SR did, but this is how this sort of stuff can escalate. However, I do suggest that SR be unblocked for long enough to add any comments he wants to in his defence, before any vote or long-term action takes place. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ
Methinks it is a Weasel 00:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- "As he has shown no indication that he is willing to cease posting this information, the injunctive block currently in place should last throughout the resolution of this case. If SuspectedReplicant would like to present a defense, he should email me or another moderator and his comments will be posted here."
Acer Blue 01:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- "As he has shown no indication that he is willing to cease posting this information, the injunctive block currently in place should last throughout the resolution of this case. If SuspectedReplicant would like to present a defense, he should email me or another moderator and his comments will be posted here."
- Agreed with the weasly one. Aceace 00:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- Huh? How should Nx know that was SR's IPs? We play that guessing game all the time with IP addresses. --★uːʤɱ sinner 00:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Bunp.
Acer Blue 21:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Vote
As the discussion has concluded, I am moving forward with a vote. It will last seven days and follow the new guidelines. The proposal is to ban SuspectedReplicant for six months and revoke his sysop rights for that same duration.
Acer Blue 03:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Yea
-
Acer Blue 03:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Behavior was knowingly and maliciously beyond the bounds.--
talk
04:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, fuck him. Outing someone like that is a shitty thing to do. Even someone like Nx. Really it should be indef until or unless he eats the Shit Burger of Remorse or does the Apology Dance or something. --MtDPinko Scum 04:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Sam Tally-ho! 04:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
-
Radioactive Misanthrope 08:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- --★uːʤɱ digital native 11:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Revealing personal info is a dick move of the nth degree, especially when it concerns trolling CP, where people like Kara will use it for their own nefarious deeds. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 12:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- This seems inline with a 2 year ban for a vauge nonspecific threat to imply to maybe sue the site or some of its users that was made off site in a private chat. As always treat this vote as my normal account. Pimobile (talk) 12:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Seems about right. DickTurpis (talk) 12:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Nay
- 6 months for revealing personal info that was quickly hidden and 3 months for a straight up death threat. Makes perfect sense.

04:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Agree with Nutty Roux, regardless of SR being a dick or not, the sanction is excessive. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 01:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Goat
- Too long. Wëäŝëïöïď
Methinks it is a Weasel 08:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Discussion
Nutty, it seems to me that 3 months is too short for the latter, not that 6 months was too long for the former. Are we bound to a 3 month ceiling on all things because of that vote?--
talk
04:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- No, and you've made an inverse error by suggesting my point was anything that's not a death threat must necessarily get less than or other than 3 months. We have a responsibility to give a sanction that matches the severity of the harm, not arbitrarily punish because you think SR is a dick or have your own idea about how horrible outing is. Different people treat it differently and even if they guard their identity like a trade secret, we've got to credibly evaluate the harm including how quickly it was hidden; if we're committed to being a rules based community we must be just. I haven't seen Nx express any concern that you know who will contact his employer. It occurs to me that Nx lives in a distant non-English speaking country and that any such threat isnt likely credible, but I don't know it all. If Nx expresses any other opinion I will reevaluate mine since I certainly have no interest in substituting my judgment for his, as some here are doing, but I want to know how he feels about this and what the harm is. If the harm is merely that SR went against Nx's druthers, 3 months is a ridiculous abuse of authority.

15:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Pi, if you're using the TK incident as a metric, you might consider what actually happened. There is nothing vague, nonspecific, or maybe about TK telling me he was going to sue Trent and that his lawyer told him not to talk to me anymore, presumably because suit was imminent. Or him telling me he was going to report me to the bar and sue me for malpractice. The threat to sue me was frivolous but the threat to beef me to the ethics board is a big deal. Lawyers have to report that stuff to their malpractice carriers or they won't defend you if you do get beefed or sued; even frivolous claims must be defended.

15:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think this should be evaluated based on how much harm he has done to me personally. You seem to be suggesting that it's no big deal because I don't live in the US or because I'm not a lawyer like you. But if he felt it was justified to reveal my name in this case, I'm sure he'll have no problem justifying revealing your real name or reporting you to the ethics board when you piss him off. -- Nx / talk 08:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- Then by what metric will you judge it? By how much he pisses you off? If not by the harm to you, by what? Without some standard that's not merely whatever subjective baggage a voter brings in with him, this is just another railroad popularity contest taken on the heels of all these moderators condemning SR. No wonder the votes are going they way they are. I mentioned what I do for work in responding to Pi's very odd characterization of my TK block to show that context matters, namely the real damage a threat can do. I had to tender the potential claim to my insurance carrier and spend money to confirm TK's identity to intimate the threats further. Surely you recognize there's a sliding scale of severity depending on the circumstances? It matters to what degree one keeps his name secret. There's a large spectrum of approaches to that, and editors' approaches may change. Mine has. It matters what the harm is - if one doesn't use his name on RW but doesn't otherwise make a big secret of it, the potential harm from a disclosure is nonexistent. Oversight it and move on. If he does keep his name secret, we need to know why he's concerned enough about this to block someone infinitely and then acquiesce to a mob reducing the ban to a mere 6 months. I'm not interested in hearing what you think SR would do to me, which of course couldn't actually know the first thing about, when it's offered to justify an arbitrary sanction. My point here is that outing is not a black and white issue and employing purely subjective criteria, which is what happens when there's no guidance on how to judge the crime is unfair. Does anyone even know the point of the 6 month block would be? Deterrence, rehabilitation, denunciation, protection? Or just plain old retribution?

13:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- So, "no harm, no foul"? --★uːʤɱ socialist 14:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- No. Less harm less foul. More harm more foul. 6 months without any guidance for determining the severity of the crime is arbitrary. Arbitrary is unfair. Short enough sentences for you, UHM?

14:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- So what would be the harm in revealing somebodies real name in this case? Because, if there was no harm, there shouldn't be any punishment either. And thank you for starting to flame me, that's how I like my banter. --★uːʤɱ structuralist 14:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- For potential harm try looking up the recent doc-dropping by Dawahfilms against Thunderf00t, ask Theo Van Gogh why that was bad. While we wouldn't necessarily have a problem with Islamic Fundamentalists firebombing and axe-murdering RW users, I won't say that our future certainly won't hold those risks. Nevertheless, the take-home message is that the person revealing it may not intend any harm, and no harm may be immediate, but the unforeseen consequences may be considerable.
bomination 14:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- I know there can be a lot of harm done, it was rethorical question. --★uːʤɱ federalist 14:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- Neither of you read what I wrote. It's neither "no harm no foul" nor the grotesque Islamo-Poe straw man Armondikov posed. The actual harm matters.

14:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- And I was pointing out that you don't know what the "actual harm" is until it happens.
theist 14:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- I said I don't know, not that it's impossible to know. If one has been sloppy about associating his real name with his RW handle then the actual harm is 0. If one has no legitimate fear because the edit was over sighted within minutes then the actual harm approaches 0 and is at that point subject to the same speculation you're encouraging where SR gets banned for 6 months because a young computer programmer or student or whatever Nx is may have his head sawed off by Islamists. Or aliens. Because we don't know. Just make a real effort to figure out what happened here instead of shitting on SR because he's not popular right now and what he did was obnoxious.

14:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not shitting on him, I haven't voted to ban him for 6 months and I haven't made a comment either way on whether that's appropriate.
postate 15:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- So what would, in your mind, be the appropiate length?
- I'm not dismissing research, I'm dismissing your argumentation because it is unrealistic, neither will just guessing it in any way make anything substantial out of it. You could be horribly wrong and to evaluate the full consequences you would have to wait basically until Nx is dead. For me, the intent matters and in this case the intent was shortsighted harm of a community member, including a breach of confidence we all agree upon silently by revealing our real names to each other. Breaching that trust is the greatest abuse of trust we have in any internet community, it is the message that the community can not trust this user and it should be treated that way. --★uːʤɱ kant 15:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not shitting on him, I haven't voted to ban him for 6 months and I haven't made a comment either way on whether that's appropriate.
- I said I don't know, not that it's impossible to know. If one has been sloppy about associating his real name with his RW handle then the actual harm is 0. If one has no legitimate fear because the edit was over sighted within minutes then the actual harm approaches 0 and is at that point subject to the same speculation you're encouraging where SR gets banned for 6 months because a young computer programmer or student or whatever Nx is may have his head sawed off by Islamists. Or aliens. Because we don't know. Just make a real effort to figure out what happened here instead of shitting on SR because he's not popular right now and what he did was obnoxious.
- And I was pointing out that you don't know what the "actual harm" is until it happens.
- Neither of you read what I wrote. It's neither "no harm no foul" nor the grotesque Islamo-Poe straw man Armondikov posed. The actual harm matters.
- I know there can be a lot of harm done, it was rethorical question. --★uːʤɱ federalist 14:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- For potential harm try looking up the recent doc-dropping by Dawahfilms against Thunderf00t, ask Theo Van Gogh why that was bad. While we wouldn't necessarily have a problem with Islamic Fundamentalists firebombing and axe-murdering RW users, I won't say that our future certainly won't hold those risks. Nevertheless, the take-home message is that the person revealing it may not intend any harm, and no harm may be immediate, but the unforeseen consequences may be considerable.
- So what would be the harm in revealing somebodies real name in this case? Because, if there was no harm, there shouldn't be any punishment either. And thank you for starting to flame me, that's how I like my banter. --★uːʤɱ structuralist 14:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- No. Less harm less foul. More harm more foul. 6 months without any guidance for determining the severity of the crime is arbitrary. Arbitrary is unfair. Short enough sentences for you, UHM?
- So, "no harm, no foul"? --★uːʤɱ socialist 14:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- Then by what metric will you judge it? By how much he pisses you off? If not by the harm to you, by what? Without some standard that's not merely whatever subjective baggage a voter brings in with him, this is just another railroad popularity contest taken on the heels of all these moderators condemning SR. No wonder the votes are going they way they are. I mentioned what I do for work in responding to Pi's very odd characterization of my TK block to show that context matters, namely the real damage a threat can do. I had to tender the potential claim to my insurance carrier and spend money to confirm TK's identity to intimate the threats further. Surely you recognize there's a sliding scale of severity depending on the circumstances? It matters to what degree one keeps his name secret. There's a large spectrum of approaches to that, and editors' approaches may change. Mine has. It matters what the harm is - if one doesn't use his name on RW but doesn't otherwise make a big secret of it, the potential harm from a disclosure is nonexistent. Oversight it and move on. If he does keep his name secret, we need to know why he's concerned enough about this to block someone infinitely and then acquiesce to a mob reducing the ban to a mere 6 months. I'm not interested in hearing what you think SR would do to me, which of course couldn't actually know the first thing about, when it's offered to justify an arbitrary sanction. My point here is that outing is not a black and white issue and employing purely subjective criteria, which is what happens when there's no guidance on how to judge the crime is unfair. Does anyone even know the point of the 6 month block would be? Deterrence, rehabilitation, denunciation, protection? Or just plain old retribution?
- I don't think this should be evaluated based on how much harm he has done to me personally. You seem to be suggesting that it's no big deal because I don't live in the US or because I'm not a lawyer like you. But if he felt it was justified to reveal my name in this case, I'm sure he'll have no problem justifying revealing your real name or reporting you to the ethics board when you piss him off. -- Nx / talk 08:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- Pi, if you're using the TK incident as a metric, you might consider what actually happened. There is nothing vague, nonspecific, or maybe about TK telling me he was going to sue Trent and that his lawyer told him not to talk to me anymore, presumably because suit was imminent. Or him telling me he was going to report me to the bar and sue me for malpractice. The threat to sue me was frivolous but the threat to beef me to the ethics board is a big deal. Lawyers have to report that stuff to their malpractice carriers or they won't defend you if you do get beefed or sued; even frivolous claims must be defended.
"Nx allegedly revealing SuspectedReplicant's IP range..."
He didn't run checkuser did he? Nx, did you run checkuser over a vote on button positioning? B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 00:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
