Information icon.svg Our policy on articles on living people is under review. Your comments and inputs are welcome on the relevant project talkpage.

RationalWiki:Chicken coop

From RationalWiki
(Redirected from Chicken coop)
Jump to: navigation, search
Not to be confused with the moderator noticeboard.

Archives for this talk page: Archive list (new)

HCM Level 5

Defenses placed on alert.

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). Please be specific and include 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 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 48 hours of filing will be deleted and you will be blocked.

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.

Summa Atheologica[edit]

I'm not bothered to explain the situation again, so I'll just copy my talk-page post which includes a message to Summa Atheologica themselves

Message to Summa Atheologica[edit]

Hey, man. As much as I am in disagreement on many topics with the editors that have engaged on this talk page, I am hopeful that they will agree with me that what you're doing now is sysop rights abuse. Let me break down why I believe that:

  1. Let's start with the topic of baseless accusations. GrammarCommie (an experienced editor by your own admission) left a message recently which asked both you and me to provide evidence for our accusations of each other of dishonesty, and to refrain from these accusations if we don't have any evidence. I have a hard time believing that you didn't see this message, given that your userpage was linked in it. And, well, what do we see? Not only do you keep baselessly accusing me of deceit, but this accusation is part of your justification for blocking me. A sysop who, despite requests by experienced editors to stop, baselessly accuses editors with whom they don't agree of ill intent and blocks them for it? That's a red flag if I've ever seen one.
  2. Now let's get to your actual rationale behind my block. You claim that I have removed a source, and that removing a source is an act of deceit. Beside even the mind-blowing hypocrisy of you having previously edit-warred ([1], [1]) out an edit which has been backed up by numerous sources[1][2][3][4], some of which I have provided to you specifically, and which represents the scientific consensus, and still accused me of ill intent, I have provided my rationale for removing the source and why I believed it was not appropriate in the edsum. Now, you may or may not agree with that rationale, but to block me because you don't agree with it puts you in a very bad light.
  3. You didn't even try to discuss the issue before blocking me. I made one edit, which I even went out of my way to justify (something which I don't have to do and something which you have never done with regards to my edits), and I immediately got blocked. At this point, I'll just throw a couple of Community Standards quotes at you: "If an edit you make is repeatedly reverted, or someone has otherwise objected to it, then discuss it on the article's talk page", "We encourage everyone to join in, be bold, and engage in sensible debate, but expect them to do so without resorting to vandalizing articles or harassing other users ", "Blocking should never occur if somebody is attempting to discuss an issue in a reasonable manner". Needless to say, you violated all of those guidelines. Given that your justification for my last block, which you issued to me without warning, was that I didn't respect a Community Standards rule (which isn't actually on the CS page), it seems only fair for you to receive at least a 3.5-day block without warning. But I digress.
  4. Parsing it all together. I have made one revert, which I politely justified. Then, without any attempt at discussion or even a warning, you block me because you don't agree that my justification is valid. You have repeatedly, against the Community Standards, assumed bad faith about me, and despite requests by other editors to stop, you not only continue doing it but use it to futher justify this block.

Update: the user has now started reverting my edits, which consist of correcting obvious spelling mistakes, on unrelated pages ([1]).

My solution[edit]

The jury is out on this one, but I really hope that all of my arguments are considered and an appropriate decision is made. I suggest that Summa Atheologica get promoted to autopatrolled and blocked for numerous violations of Community Standards guidelines, as their abusive editing strategy hampers progress on the pages in which they are active. The faults in their editing strategy have already been pointed out to them, and my own 3.5-day block that came without any warning was ruled to have been valid, so I don't think that any additional warnings are warranted.— Unsigned, by: Przciąszczłóśćiek / talk / contribs


@Przciąszczłóśćiek: I don't know what @Summa Atheologica's problem is with your edits. You may have a legitimate complaint. But you shouldn't come to this page and try to get an experienced editor promoted. You should ask a moderator for assistance. Ariel31459 (talk) 15:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

So how do I ask a moderator for assistance? Also, why shouldn't I try and get an experienced editor promoted, given that their sysop rights mean that every edit I make comes with the risk of me getting blocked, or the edit reverted, for no reason? Przciąszczłóśćiek (talk) 15:09, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Try RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation, the mod's talk page. It is not typical for a new user to become litigious. A really good reason not to do it is it often doesn't turn out well for the complainant. Ariel31459 (talk) 15:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  1. Sherwin, C.M. (2001). "Can invertebrates suffer? Or, how robust is argument-by-analogy?". Animal Welfare (Supplement) 10: 103–S118.