RationalWiki:Chicken coop

From RationalWiki
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)