RationalWiki:Chicken coop

From RationalWiki
(Redirected from Chicken coop)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Not to be confused with the moderator noticeboard.
Archives for this page
HCM Level 6

All defenses on standby.

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 long-standing edit wars or article content disputes), as well as reporting the violation of non-standard sanctions. Please be specific and provide evidence by including links to any relevant discussions, page edits or logs.

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. However, any serious or permanent solution, such as removal of rights or lengthy ban, requires a community vote here according to the guidelines laid out in our Community Standards.

Please try to resolve conflicts directly through discussion on other editor's talk pages before reporting them. It's better to just talk to someone rather than try to drag their name through the mud.

If the issue is not conflict resolution, but concerns RationalWiki policies, suggested changes to how things work around here, or similar matters of principle, please post on on the Community Standards talk page instead.

When presenting a case here, be sure to include whom you are accusing, what exactly you are accusing them of, some hard evidence, and a brief explanation. Since the sole purpose of the Coop is to resolve these disputes, don't post unrelated or more generalized complaints here — if you do, your posts will be moved off the page. Any vote started within 24 hours of filing will be considered invalid.

Use {{CoopNotice}} to inform the user in question, so that they have a chance to discuss their actions here.

As a final note, if you think this page is a good tactic to apply in gaming the mob into doing your bidding, you may be shocked to see your post archived quite swiftly.

Pinkerite

User Pinkerite has twice deleted comments I made on their talk page and replaced them with insults. I feel this merits some slap on the wrist.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:50, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Now three times.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:53, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
Agreed. She self-admittedly hates RW and is only here to stir up drama. She needs a short term block at least.-Flandres (talk) 17:07, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
As a longtime user who has, thus far, stayed out of this fray: I will say that I find it particularly troubling that Pinkerite seems to have no problem putting this entire Wiki at jeopardy for their own agenda. While there is certainly nothing inherently wrong with wanting to white supremacists (indeed, I was the first author of pages such as Ian Stuart Donaldson), there is always something wrong when a user thinks that this Wiki is theirs to use to go after others who've shown no problem responding with legal attacks on the Wiki. Especially when this Wiki's mission has always been much greater than such squabbles. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 17:53, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
@Pinkerite: From RationalWiki:Community_Standards#Talk_pages, "Similarly, users should not delete or change another user's comments on a talk or discussion page, with the following exceptions: …" The mentioned incidents were not exceptions, as I see it. If you honestly had a case of a user harassing you, as you claimed, you could have brought it up with the moderators, but you didn't. Bongolian (talk) 17:10, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
Consider it brought up. Pinkerite (talk) 17:14, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I remember suggesting the civility parole a few months ago on a now deleted ATIM case, the same one that I suggested the iban. I still think it would work better than a short block. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 18:22, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Why would it? Civility parole doesn't have the best track record. If anything it would be an even greater headache as some would implement blocks, claiming the terms of the parole have been violated, while others would rush to undo these blocks. The parole relies on an intensely subjective judgement.-Flandres (talk) 18:53, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
My personal feeling would be a block and admonishment. As I mentioned elsewhere - my main reason for bringing this is up is not about their insults. RW has a fine history of them.
The issue is deleting talk-page comments. It is evident that this user feels that being challenged or contradicted is the same as being "insulted". They need to understand this is not the case.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:13, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
The comments in question, to be fair, are on the theme that Pinkerite sucks and should go away (first one is just before those deleted, the rest echo it and, finally, the last mention reporting the deletions).[1][2][3][4] In the RW community standards, even such comments aren't normally deleted (except if such things were written by BoNs or suspicious socks, then they usually are). I'd say it's not at all unreasonable for Pinkerite to find them insulting, though that, as it happens, still does not warrant their deletion by the current norms. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 22:45, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
While I definitely agree with the characterization of Pinkerite by both Flandres and John Jacob Jingelheimer Schmidt, I also have to agree with ApooftGnegiol that Pinkerite removing Bob M's comments was really no big deal. There has been no violation of community standards. No slap on the wrist is warranted at this time. Spud (talk) 01:11, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
The relevant part off CS states:
"A user's talk page, like any other talk page on the site, is public and does not belong to the user. However, users are permitted to delete posts from their own talk pages at their discretion, being responsible for any abuse of this permission. Users who believe their comments have been removed unjustifiably can take their case to the Chicken Coop or All Things in Moderation, rather than edit-warring over the removal." (Emphasis mine).
I have followed those rules to the letter. I did not edit-war and I brought the case here to point out the abuse of this permission. Presumably the intention of CS instruction to bring the matter up here is to ensure that the offending user is at least instructed to mend their ways - if not, what use is it?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:31, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
I'm going to split the difference; that while it is perfectly fine to do as they see fit on their own pages, its kinda bad faith to remove critical non-insulting comments towards them. Esp as they have made insulting allegations towards others on the very same place. You can also enjoy the irony of them complaining about censorship on RW while then doing the very same action themselves.
I personally feel (and as I have spent a lot of my bandwidth talking to them) that the user has gone beyond the critical friend / asking questions stage. They have repeatedly been explained why the situation is the way it is (talking in v generalities for obvious reasons), and why their implicit suggestion of action is utterly unviable. But they continued to push for the same action without actually dealing for the reasons why it was unviable. I wouldn't have really minded this if they had then started brainstorming how RW could grow past this, perhaps even start doing the stuff to do so. The user knows this, for we have discussed this on length. It was one of the main reasons to continuing to interact with them; I felt that they very well prove a real asset to RW and that an outreach would help.
This has proved not to be. All my alt suggestions of actions have been ignored, as well as the inferred ones. I have taken to task person(s) when I felt there was at least some truth in what they said, and I hope that my bitching will bear fruit on that (for the long term benefit of RW). But to no avail. I had hoped that a topic ban etc might help refocus the activity into productive activity but it appears to be of no avail.
It's almost a bullet headed obstancy that unless we immediately follow their plans (with zero help / suggestions to make it work) it's proof that persons here are basically 'in the pay of enemies' and now there's shitty random whining about how shit/useless/circlejerky we all are. I don't think it really needs to be pointed out I suspect said BoNs are much more likely to be in the camp of the very ghouls Pinkerite loathes than against them.
What to do? Don't know. But had to get that off my chest. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:42, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
Looking through these exchanges, it seems that there was inflammatory language on both sides, however it seems that Pinkerite was the one who was uncivil on more than one occasion (ad hominem attacks against Bob: "creep", "asshole", etc.) Pinkerite clearly was angry to have Bob commenting on her talk page and there is a better way to resolve this, particularly if you feel like you're being harassed, than ad hominem: bring it to the attention of the mods and request either an interaction ban or a ban from your talk page for the harasser; this has been done before in other cases. Civility is a violation of community standards, but first offenses typically do not receive sanction or at least not a significant one. I think the greater problem is that Pinkerite is often not being productive on RW (repeatedly rehashing the litigation), and it would seem that she is not enjoying her time here. It's unfortunate because she has made a lot of productive contributions. Bongolian (talk) 23:26, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
I am not doubting or complaining about the language, RW has a long history of users fighting things out, somethings with intemperate language. I brought this because of her censoring comments about her which she doesn't like on her talk page. At one time CS made it impossible to edit any comments on a talk page. This was changed to allow people to remove comments they considered abusive - but with the explicit proviso that this removal could be challenged here.
If their removal of comments they don't like goes unchallenged then they will be given full right to censor their talk page in respect of any comments they don't like. And I don't think that they should be given access to that sort of censorship.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:42, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Let the voting begin!

Since blocking was the most discussed punishment, I will use the traditional block length options for this vote. Just to remind everyone-it's been a bit since we did this-your account needs to be at least three months old and have at least 75 edits in order to cast a valid vote. Since this penalty vote deals with blocking, "Yea" needs a two-thirds majority in order to pass.-Flandres (talk) 20:39, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Shouldn't It be Nay, pi day, pi week, pi month, perma? KarmaPolice (talk) 21:19, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
No, this format has a pretty rich precedent here. (Just look through the archives.) Some people might be okay with some blocks but opposed to others-okay with Pi days but opposed to permaban, for instance.-Flandres (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
The precedent is stupid. The idea that unless they explicitly say as such a pi-month vote is not also a pi-week etc. That on short, each person should simply vote for the maximum punishment and then we find out which one enjoys majority support. Otherwise we can easily convict on stupidly low voteshares. And yes, I remember times where folks argued that the result was unfair because of that. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:33, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
If you want to propose/codify a format for our penalty votes, perhaps you should go to the community standards, and we can discuss this there.-Flandres (talk) 21:37, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Pi days

Yea

  1. So, people have both argued for and against Pinkerite violating CS. I lean toward "yes she did," though I would not call the "no" side hacks and this has all and all been a civil/well-argued coop. While I think we need to draw a line, I'm not getting the big guns out either.-Flandres (talk) 03:20, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
  2. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:19, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
  3. CorruptUser 21:49, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Nay

  1. Pinkerite has irritated me more than any other user in my 14 years on RationalWiki, even more than this arsehole. I've seen plenty of people come here with the intention of destroying RationalWiki from the inside, but only Pinkerite has (probably unintentionally) put RationalWiki in real danger. And she claims her last few months here have been a fact-finding mission to discover who is "yanking our chain". What did she learn? The names of the people who tried to sue us are a matter of public record. Well, I hope she learned that Board members were not paid to keep quiet. But having said all that, removing comments you don't like from your talk page does not warrant any kind of punishment. I'm voting "no' to any kind of ban. Spud (talk) 03:14, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
  2. Despite all the shit-stirring, conspiracy mongering, and JAQing off about the site and the foundation that Pinkerite does, I don't think a block is justified in this case. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 20:04, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
  3. They have not committed a bookable offence in this case. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:56, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Goat

Pi weeks

Yea

Nay

  1. Spud (talk) 03:14, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
  2. cosmikdebris talk stalk 20:04, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
  3. Bongolian (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
  4. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:56, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Goat

Pi Months

Yea

Nay

  1. Spud (talk) 03:14, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
  2. Bongolian (talk) 04:23, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
  3. cosmikdebris talk stalk 20:04, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
  4. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:56, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Goat

Permaban

Yea

Nay

  1. Spud (talk) 03:14, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
  2. Bongolian (talk) 04:23, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
  3. cosmikdebris talk stalk 20:04, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
  4. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:56, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Goat