RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive72

BadPiggies 9
I recently changed the user rights of (BP9) so they are no longer autopatrolled or a sysop (they were a sysop for less than two days). This was in response to BP9 trying to block me permanently for the following reason:

BP9's subsequent comments showed this was clearly not a joke or an accident. I welcome you to look through my contributions to verify that I did nothing worthy of a block.

BP9 created their account in August 2018 and started editing recently in October 2018. I have tried to be patient with them since they're new (far too new to be a sysop, in my opinion) but they have demonstrated a pattern of problematic behaviour:
 * An article BP9 created, Fun:Conservapedia How To Guide, was heavily plagiarised from Liberapedia and so I deleted it. This article was then restored with the following summary: It wasn't completely plagiarized; most of it was actually either paraphrased, cited, or original; I will later give them credit (see also: RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Fun:Conservapedia How To Guide). They also described plagiarism as a "small thing": "destroying an entire article over such a small thing? Nu-uh. That's not okay."
 * BP9 restored the deleted page SJWiki. Some of their edits to the page were barely indistinguishable from trolling: "And if you try to look in the logs, then, well, let's just say that you need a registered account to even do that, in the off-chance that someone came around and tried to restore that damned article that they found triggering". BP9 also referenced encyclopediadramatica.rs (ED) for a statement of fact. After undoing my edits, BP9 accused me of trolling and unfunny vandalism and described me as a troll multiple times. I included edit summaries explaining my reasoning and, by undoing my edits, BP9 restored the ED reference.
 * I recommend looking at BP9's current essay Essay:SJWiki which still references Encyclopædia Dramatica. The ED article says this: "The articles range from completely batshit crazy to extremely batshit crazy. The articles are written by ugly dykes and trannies, often a combination of the two." BP9 used this as a source for the claim "quite a few of [SJWiki's] sysops are trans themselves".
 * Quote from BP9: Although I did what I had to as a sysop and protected the heavily-vandalized FFRF article. Freedom From Religion Foundation was protected by BP9 indefinitely due to "Excessive trolling". There was only 1 edit since April 2018 that was not by BP9 (and that one edit was not vandalism).
 * Vandalising the user pages of other users. (To be fair, BP9 did apologise for this)

Trying to patiently deal with this user has wasted a lot of my time. My recommendation for BP9 is sysoprevoke. CowHouse (talk) 02:55, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Given the current information as well as my own observations concerning BP9's behavior I would have to agree with CowHouse. 03:18, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you please explain why you referenced Encyclopædia Dramatica for your claim about SJWiki's sysops? I don't know how you could read that article and think it was an appropriate source. I'm not asking for an apology either, I genuinely want to know why you referenced it because I don't see how this could be an innocent mistake. CowHouse (talk) 05:50, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * BP9 removed the ED source from their essay. If there's a reasonable explanation for why it was cited in the first place, I'm all ears. CowHouse (talk) 04:08, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I cited it because there is very little information online about SJWiki, and I was getting very desperate for more sources. I don’t like that stupid wiki (ED) or their article any more than you do. I later looked at their page on us, and it was extremely anti-Semitic, among other things. B P "'''9 17:45, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Apology from BadPiggies 9
Hi CH (is it OK if I call you that?), I am genuinely sorry about my rash and childish behavior yesterday. I was very tired and not in my best mood, and I'll admit that I didn't exactly make the best decisions. You're right, I should not have done the things that I did. Now I acknowledge that if I don't want what I create to be mercilessly edited by "the mob", then I should make an essay about it, rather than making big accusations like I did against you. Also, you're right, I should not have tried to block you just for mercilessly editing one of my creations (I've just realized that merciless editing is a given on here, and most other wikis), and now I understand why you desys- er, I mean promoted me: because I did a full-on Karajou on you, and I'm sorry. I would also like to apologize for that essay that you were disturbed by, the one that involved me "wandalizing" CP. I have no idea what got into me, but don't think that it reflects what I seek to do on here. Unlike CP, I have great respect for this site. I originally apologized on Duce's talk page (and pinged you, among other mods), but I would also like to apologize to you. It will never happen again. B P "'''9 03:28, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This seems like a reasonable apology to me. I suggest that we not give you sysoprevoke status, but instead let you re-earn sysop status by showing that you are earnest with making quality edits for a while. What do you think, and others?
 * You can call me CH if you want. I appreciate the apology for the block. I hope this apology extends to the other behaviour listed above. By the way, I never said I was disturbed by your Conservapedia essay.
 * I still think sysoprevoke is fair. I'd argue it's lenient considering other users have been vandal binned for similar behaviour. CowHouse (talk) 05:50, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, my apology does extend to the rest of my immature behavior :) B P "'''9 06:03, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Duce's proposal
I must admit, the fastest way into my shriveled heart is a genuine show of contrition. And I'm a big believer that everyone deserves a second chance. So I'll propose my own solution to this. A mod should place BP9 into sysoprevoke. BP9 should then take as much time as they think they need to prove that they are a quality contributor. At that point, if they still wish to do so, they may either go to mom's basement or approach said mod on their talk page and present their case as to why they deserve to have sysop restored. I believe this is reasonable, and I'm also convinced that BP9 will be able to assemble a compelling argument. However,, if you get sysop and abuse our/my trust by starting another shitstorm like this, I'm gonna be a lot less flexible on the next version of this coop page. I believe this is not overly harsh, as BP9 gets to choose their own duration of "punishment", but it also puts the burden on them to show that they are indeed a reasonable and intelligent contributor. 05:02, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This is pretty much what you were thinking, right? 05:06, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I know it's our policy to make everyone who isn't an obvious, vandal or troll a sysop. But after actively editing for less than a month? I think that was a big mistake. I was on here for over a year before I was made a sysop and it never did me any harm. I do not think BasPiggies9 should be denied the opportunity to ever become a syso again. But I don't think those rights should be restored immediately or any time soon. BadPiggies9 should just contribute here as an ordinary user for the time being and not ask to be made a sysop. If, after making worthwhile contributions for a few more months, BadPiggies9 is made a sysop again, that will probably be fine with me. And I would just like to say that to be a successful wiki editor, you have to be pretty thick skinned. You cannot take it personally when your edits are undone, rolledback, deleted or otherwise drastically changed. And, yes, sleep is important. Spud (talk) 05:48, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I don’t mind being “re-promoted” for just a few months. Now to get some quality sleep... B P "'''9 05:59, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, we've done something along those lines before, . It's fine with me if it satisfies . Bongolian (talk) 06:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It sounds reasonable, although it doesn't really matter if it satisfies me since it's not my decision. Should we vote on Duce's proposal? CowHouse (talk) 04:08, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I suppose we should, if only to wrap this Coop case up in a timely fashion. 02:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, let's vote on the proposal and end the coop case.

Vote on DuceMoosolini's proposal:

Yes

 * 1) Yes. Bongolian (talk) 02:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) There's no real harm in this method, especially in case BadPiggies 9 messes up again. I don't think sysoprevoke is necessary unless anyone else anticipates someone trying to redemote BadPiggies9 to sysop, however. 04:03, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If you think sysoprevoke is unnecessary, shouldn't you vote no? CowHouse (talk) 14:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the mechanics work the same regardless of whether it's sysoprevoke or just the current plain ol' promotion. 19:36, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Predictably, I vote yes. 04:07, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Yes. I just hope that BadPiggies9 doesn't ask to be made a sysop again until some time in 2019. Spud (talk) 05:01, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Yes. Cosmikdebris (talk) 13:05, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) CowHouse (talk) 14:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, though grudgingly. BadPiggies9 needs to improve themselves somewhat in my eyes. 14:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Yes, Ariel31459 (talk) 14:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Ban button will continue to exist. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Seems reasonable. This can probably be achieved soon. --RWRW (talk) 18:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Based on what I've read I'm voting a solid 'yeah probably a good idea'. 18:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Why not? sounds fine. 18:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Result
OK, looks like the support for DuceMoosolini's proposal is unanimous. I will change BP9's status and archive this coop case. Bongolian (talk) 18:33, 2 November 2018 (UTC)