RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive79

Tyrone

This seems like the perfect place to settle the issue with @Tyrone8934, rather than his talk page. I`m temporarily debanning him, but am putting him in the vandal bin for safe measure, in order to allow him a chance to defend himself. — Palaeonictis ^{Fossil beds} 13:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Umm...context? RoninMacbeth (talk) 14:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Zero and @GrammarCommie can explain. — Palaeonictis ^{Fossil beds} 15:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Basically Tyrone is always making an ass out of himself, and although that article (The Golden One) has turned out surprisingly useful, his other contributions and everything he says are not conducive to a peaceful environment. — Dysk (contribs) 15:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

So, is the ass-making all that he's doing? If so, is it actively threatening the stability of the wiki? Because unless it is, I'm not going to vote for a permaban. RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Well he edit warred over some rebuttal he insisted on putting in Men's Rights Movement which was last reverted by Zero, and when Zero short-blocked and desysoped him, he the called her an "intellectually bankrupt coward ... look like a hippo with long hair and glasses" (in reference to Zero's appearance, see her userpage). After which Zero put him in sysoprevoke. Given that we are not really supposed to unilaterally add sysoprevoke we ought to have some kind of debate just on that, even if we don't permaban him. — Dysk (contribs) 15:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Puking up crank soundbytes isn't worthy of a permaban. It's just stupid and embarrassing. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

The insulting Zero thing is a bit trickier, though. Maybe keep him in the vandal bin, or even short block him? RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@RoninMacbeth Either option sounds reasonable to me. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I think a longer ban for personal attacks and a stint in the bin would be just punishment. Commie Lib (talk) 17:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

How long do you think? I think 9 days should be sufficient. RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I would vote for a nine day ban but we should give the accused a chance to defend themselves. Commie Lib (talk) 17:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I'd like to give Tyrone8934 a chance to speak here. Bongolian (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC) I've looked at the links. I don't think it's worthy of a long-term ban unless there's repeated evidence of this. Bongolian (talk) 19:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bongolian Here, Here, and Here. Commie Lib (talk) 19:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think a permanent ban is appropriate, but I must insist that we take some form of punitive action against this user. 9-day block sounds good, but I think some extended bin time would be better. (In the interest of full disclosure, however, I'll mention that I've already had a strongly negative encounter with this user on Talk:The Golden One.) DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 19:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, they need some time to cool off and have a pattern of resorting to ad hominem attacks when they feel threatened. Commie Lib (talk) 19:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

The two of Tyrone8934's comments that I've seen (User talk:Tyrone8934#Message to Zero) are unwarranted personal attacks, which are getting close to harassment. Given Tyrone8934's short period of time on RW, Sysoprevoke is indeed reasonable. A 9-day block also sounds reasonable. Bongolian (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think he's coming. Vote? RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Tyrone Response

@Zero didn't give me any warnings before reverting my edits. He / she didn't even invite me to discuss the issue on the talk page. If I'm to be punished for edit warring, that pig on 2 legs Zero should share my punishment! See the third bullet point on this page.

When I was blocked and demoted, my fight-or-flight response kicked in, and I chose to fight. Chicken Coop wasn't an option as I was (obviously) blocked at the time.

RULE SUGGESTION: I propose a new rule that requires anyone who reverts edits, regardless of rank, to explain why in the respective article's talk page. Zero did not do this. Having this rule would help prevent fiascos like this in the future. Tyrone8934 (talk) 22:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

First, gods damn, you really should stop digging that hole you're in. Second, fair point, we should probably have unblocked you. Sorry about that. Third, the main problem with that is that explaining why you needed to revert obvious vandalism is not going to be productive. Still, the general idea is sound, just needs some work. RoninMacbeth (talk) 23:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Nah. Not all reverts require explanation. The revert action is already telling people that something is objectionable with the edit. It's up to the reverted party to ask why the edit was reverted. Do not give whoever that reverted your edit a hard time. Basic courtesy. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 00:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes to 9-Day Block and Indefinite Bin

1. Seems appropriate for what we are discussing. RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
2. Agreed. Spud (talk)
3. Support, based on his personal attacks against Zero and general behavior. — Dysk (contribs) 17:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
4. Aye. Commie Lib (talk) 17:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
5. Yes. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 17:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
6. Yes. Bongolian (talk) 18:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
7. Approved. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
8. Nah, yeah. --MtD^Bogan 19:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
9. This user has been consistently and unnecessarily condescending, rude, and disruptive. My first impressions have been negative, and this user has done little beyond improving The Golden One to help change my impression. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 00:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Also Sysoprevoke

1. Yes DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 17:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
2. Given the privileges afforded to Sysops, it would seem pertinent to revoke these privileges until the current incident is resolved. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
3. Yes. Bongolian (talk) 18:59, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
4. This too. --MtD^Bogan 19:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
5. For continuing to insult Zero. Spud (talk) 04:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

No

1. See "Tyrone's response" above. Tyrone8934 (talk) 22:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Goat

• Oppose infinite bin cause that's not what it's for. Support short block and sysoprevoke. — Dysk (contribs) 16:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

  Oh, by no means should it be infinite. It merely leaves the time he is in the bin undefined, until some hypothetical sysop (maybe even one of us) feels that he deserves to be paroled. RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

  Ah right that seems fine then. — Dysk (contribs) 17:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• I think he LANCBed. Commie Lib (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
• We should implement it now, he isn't coming back. Commie Lib (talk) 20:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• Like genital herpes, he'll be back. --MtD^Bogan 21:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• Can anyone cite chapter and verse on the new No Personal Attacks rule. I missed the change in RW policy. nobs ^{piss in my ear} 21:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

  I think it's in Ephesians 5:4. — Dysk (contribs) 21:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

  This is not a new rule for coop cases. It goes back to at least 2012: RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive57. Nobs himself was blocked for harassment in 2010. FYI, Nobs, there's a big difference between calling someone a Nazi because they're exhibiting fascistic tendencies and calling someone a cunt (as you have, Nobs) because they're female. Bongolian (talk) 21:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

  I called someone a cunt? That's a goddam lie. nobs ^{piss in my ear} 22:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

  Can you two continue this enlightening debate over the c-word someplace else please. — Dysk (contribs) 23:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

  I apologize for that, @RobSmith. I confused you with someone else. Bongolian (talk) 23:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

  o_0 — Dysk (contribs) 23:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

  We're having DarkMaster2 flashbacks, I see. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 00:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• I don't know how I can be such a prolific editor here, read this whole thread, and still not know what's going on. Someone's a dumbass, but with redeeming features, is about all I've been able to pull out. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 21:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
• Given that sysoprevoke is becoming an increasingly serious sanction affecting eligibility for office (IIRC), maybe that isn't a great idea. I personally think the bin and tempblock should suffice. RoninMacbeth (talk) 22:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

  @RoninMacbeth To be clear, I only support Sysoprevoke until the vandal bin section of the punishment is over, (and I do expect it to end, even if I have to do it myself) due to control over the Vandal bin being a standard Sysop privilege. That is to to say if Tyrone was demoted within that time frame they could simply unbin themselves, thus making the binning moot. Roughly a week after the block should suffice for both the Bin and the Sysoprevoke. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

  Wasn't part of the thing with sysoprevoke that it PERMANENTLY renders the user ineligible? Or was that my misinterpretation (or someone else's that I'm now parroting)? RoninMacbeth (talk) 23:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

  As I understand it, you can't run to be mod or trustee if you are currently in sysoprevoke. — Dysk (contribs) 23:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

  @RoninMacbeth I was under the same impression as @Dysklyver. If am wrong please correct me. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 23:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

  Someone in Sysoprevoke potentially petition a moderator or moderators to have that status removed, presumably after an extended period of good behavior. Bongolian (talk) 23:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

  Yeah, you are able to reverse your punishment after it has been establish you have learned your lesson. Commie Lib (talk) 23:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• I was actually the first reversion. I had intended to make a comment upon doing so, but this was my first wiki rollback. By the time I figured out how to add a comment (and what I'd done wrong), I didn't have time to correct it. My comment would have been that the interjection didn't fit the theme, tone, and writing style of the article, and needs sources for the statement.TheTallMass (talk) 23:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Result

Result: 9-day ban, vandal bin, sysop revoke for Tyrone. Bongolian (talk) 04:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)