RationalWiki:Chicken coop

From RationalWiki
(Redirected from RationalWiki:The turd bath)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Not to be confused with the moderator noticeboard.
Archives for this page
It has been 212 days since the last squabble.

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.

On Tetrapteryx

As shown on the RMF talkpage, there is a lot of inference that @Tetrapteryx are either one of the circle of litigants or friendly to them. They are deliberately trying to rile users and I believe trying to build up a case in reopening the whole can 'o legal shit to do in RW forever.

Apart from the creation of the semi-stub Glenn Morton, this account seems to only exist pasting on various talk-pages about the same damn subject; litigation, the verboten list and legal menaces. There was at least one earlier case involving this user, which has been censored as part of the whole verboten agreement, so you can work out what all that was about.

Let's get rid, now [note that this is the first time I've ever gone straight into wanting a permaban]. Someone paste the voting thing up; I don't know how off top of head and don't have time to learn either.

If they wish to be the spokesperson for the verboten circle, they can do it via RWs lawyer.

Anyway, is the verboten list's lawyer dead or something?

KarmaPolice (talk) 09:59, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
Well, this is disappointing, but let me explain more detail about my involvement in all this.
I'm pretty sure know I more about what the litigants are up to than any other user here. I know about this because I'm close friends with a person who is involved in ISIR. I think I'm not supposed to name her, but she's a woman, which narrows down who it could be. This is public information; I've mentioned it several other times, and she and I collaborated on an anti-creationism book a few years ago.
I've previously shared a lot of what I know about the litigants (in private) with both Bongolian and RW's board, including giving Bongolian around two weeks of advance warning about the lawsuits before they began hitting. I'm not sure how useful any of this turned out to be, but at the time they gave me the impression that they appreciated it.
The previous coop case about me was mainly over the suspicion that I would eventually try to push a hereditarian point of view on articles, which resulted in me being preemptively topic banned from articles related to race and intelligence, although I hadn't actually edited those articles in the time since joining RationalWiki. This discussion is the first time anyone aside from Pinkerite has told me it was a problem for me to discuss what I know about the litigants. See here for one of the places I previously asked whether it was acceptable for me to discuss this topic; the answer there was yes. (The ATIM discussion linked to there, in which the board members and moderators explicitly told me it was fine for me to discuss the lawsuits, is among the redacted material.)
If RW's leadership had told me to not discuss these issues anymore, I would have stopped without having to be told twice. But based on the answer I was given when I asked about this in the spring, I was under the impression that sharing what I know about these issues was one of the most useful things that I can contribute here. I'm following the instructions I was given by board members and moderators in the previous discussions here, and I'll continue to follow it, even now that I'm being threatened with a ban. That includes not discussing these issues anymore, if the consensus about whether that's appropriate changes from what it was in the earlier discussions.
@KarmaPolice Please make an effort to understand this background, including the instructions I was given in previous discussions, before you conclude there's been anything inappropriate about my behavior (aside from not making enough content edits). I'll provide more background if you need it. Tetrapteryx (talk) 13:05, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
So this ISIR woman you are close friends with, how is it that she knows so much of what "the litigants are up to?" I don't see her name mentioned in the lawsuits. And her RW article was removed before the SLAPP lawsuits began. So it's rather odd that someone who made a big deal of saying she was on the ISIR board that made the decision to redact the talk of a certain individual who I suspect is behind the SLAPP suits, is somehow your source for information. What do you know about her connection to the plaintiffs who sued - and settled with - the New Mexico RationalWiki? Pinkerite (talk) 14:10, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
Pinkerite, I'm not interested in engaging with you any more about this issue, because I think you don't have the ability to be reasonable about it. KarmaPolice has the ability to be reasonable, so if he has questions for me I'll answer them. Aside from that, it's inappropriate for you to be asking me a question that's virtually impossible to answer without violating the settlements. Tetrapteryx (talk) 14:24, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
That woman was one of the 28 people who wanted to take legal action against, even though the article about her had been deleted months before.
In my opinion, the information that Tetrapetryx passed on about the lawsuits was no bloody use at all. It certainly didn't help us fight them. I'd really rather he didn't discuss them again ever. I certainly don't want him to act as an intermediary between the Board and people who want to sue us, as he did regarding deleting images. Please leave that stuff to their lawyer. Spud (talk) 14:30, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
@Spud As I said, if the new consensus here is that I shouldn't discuss the lawsuits anymore, I'll follow those instructions. However, if that's the consensus, Pinkerite also will need to stop asking me questions about them, as she did here and here. My answering Pinkerite's questions was what caused the current drama, including this coop case. Tetrapteryx (talk) 14:48, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
The censorship never ends. Once they succeed in censoring even references to individuals, the next step is to censor mere questions. Pinkerite (talk) 15:03, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
Amazing - Jonathan Kane made multiple attempts to smear me, I defended myself, and now he's flouncing off in indignation, claiming I am unreasonable. But since you, Jonathan Kane, claim there is some kind of connection between a Board member of the ISIR and the individuals who recently sued and settled with the New Mexico RationalMedia - one of whom was called a racist and implied to be an influence on a mass-murderer, by the NYTimes, I'd be interested to know what the woman herself has to say - no need for any more input from you - I think she and I can probably agree that you've done quite enough. Why don't you send me her email address via my Pinkerite address and I will ask her directly about your claim. Pinkerite (talk) 14:47, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
But "That woman was one of the 28 people who wanted to take legal action against" is news to me - since the Board member of ISIR is not named in one of the official lawsuits, she must be part of the secret deal. But her article had already been removed, so why was she even threatening to sue in the first place? Unless she had some kind of arrangement with the others who were part of the secret deal. But Kane appears to be speaking on behalf of the plaintiffs who actually filed lawsuits, which implies that the ISIR Board member also has some kind of connection to them too. You are just a wondrous source of information, Jonathan Kane. Pinkerite (talk) 14:55, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
Even if it were possible for me to answer this question without violating the settlements (which I suspect it isn't), it's literally impossible to answer while also following Spud's advice to me above. And I know you're aware of that, too. Why are you repeatedly asking me questions that you know can't be answered without creating a problem? Tetrapteryx (talk) 15:09, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
Which question are you referring to? My statement above is asking general questions, not directed at you specifically. I thought you and I already agreed not to communicate. Or do you now plan to police every single thing I write on RationalWiki? But you certainly are a damn fool to come at me and then spill all this information about your pal and the apparent arrangements she has with notorious racists, at the same time she's on the Board of an organization that wants to be seen as mainstream and of course not at all racist no matter how many notorious racists it platforms. My impression is that you want me to write a post on Pinkerite about your friend and her connection to SLAPP-happy racist ghouls. Pinkerite (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2025 (UTC)