RationalWiki talk:Chicken coop/Archive3

Pommer's Law
How is the picture related to Pommer's Law? –Nazis are bad and I don't like them 00:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You haven't seen this page in action, have you? Peter mqzp 05:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

RW/RWF
Has something changed?

Why has a RationalWiki community page been locked by someone acting as a representative of the Rational Media Foundation?

I quote from our own page about RationalWiki:
 * "RationalWiki is owned by the RationalMedia Foundation (RMF), an incorporated 501(c)(3) nonprofit. The RMF operates the infrastructure that keeps RationalWiki running and holds its associated trademarks and copyrights, but it does not govern the community or any content the community produces." - Emphasis mine.

Has there been a change to the governance of RationalWiki? If so, where can I read when and why this change occurred and to what extent these new powers run to?

Nutty Roux may think the community has no need of an input here, tough shit quite frankly. I have no idea what is going on with RMF/the conduct or lack of effort from its representatives or the troll that's been blocked about this, but now I want to know all about it as a community page for airing grievances is locked to the community because someone decided they'd rather not hear something they don't like. -- 20:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If you look at the discussions surrounding this issue (and on this page itself), you'll see it's been cited by RMF board members as a legal issue where comments on RW could jeopardise the RMF & hence RW itself, and that lawyer-client privilege was mentioned as a reason for not discussing the issue more openly onsite. I suggest leaving it at that.  This page will unlock again in a few hours; it's not that big a deal.  21:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The Foundation is now a lawyer?


 * I'm not at all concerned about information being redacted should it be of a libellous nature. subject to certain scrutiny that just prevents that from being a catch-all for removing anything unliked... However Nutty decided to state that the community has no say on this and locked a community page whilst acting as a member of the Foundation.


 * Now, has it changed that RMF representatives can run roughshod over this wiki at their whim and without oversight?


 * See I don't think it has, and to go back to the purpose behind this case, I seem to remember us having something about techs altering privileges and issuing blocks a while back. Anyone want to explain why we got our say back then and now we don't because Nutty "says so"? -- 23:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * All users are equal, but some users are more equal than others. Tielec01 (talk) 00:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The slippery slope is, indeed, a fallacy. Sure wish the members of a "critical thinking community" actually thought critically. Seriously. Sterile (talk) 01:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Who's arguing slippery slope? Tielec01 (talk) 01:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Just as a point of interest, the slippery slope fallacy is a bit like the glib statement :correlation does not equal causation"; It's only true in certain situations. A slippery slope fallacy is only committed when the start point and end point aren't logically or empirically related. A slippery slope argument can be legitimate just like correlation can wink and nudge suggestively at causation. In any case, I don't think anyone is making a slippery slope argument...Tielec01 (talk) 01:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "RMF representatives can run roughshod over this wiki at their whim and without oversight?" Right.
 * Everyone, board member or not, has an obligation to remove defamatory material. There is nothing else to say. Sterile (talk) 01:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Iscariot is arguing that this is happening right now not as some theoretical end point to a slippery slope. I won't argue in favour of the statement (I didn't make it), but it's not a slippery slope argument. Actually, Iscariot and yourself are in vicious agreement on removing defamation. Tielec01 (talk) 01:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Iscariot is indeed arguing about what is happening now. Iscariot has not looked into the tech's actions and the chronology, but an allegation of tech power abuse certainly needs looking at, as we have done in the past. Iscariot is highly annoyed that a community page has been protected because "Waa, waa, it's late here" and "You don't get to talk about any of this because I fucking say so". Things that are definitely going to cause us legal problems should be removed, and their reinsertion frowned upon until legal advice says otherwise, however, things that could be (or where there's a potential conflict of interest, professional or otherwise) need the public discussion by the mob that is the founding principle of the way we decide things here at RationalWiki.


 * I quote from the Community Standards, "RationalWiki generally does not protect pages. The community feels that, given the ease with which vandalism can be reverted, protection is unnecessary." We've burnt the page histories before, multiple times, to clear out problem material, but we don't protect community pages on one person's say-so.


 * Let's also remember that RMF and RationalWiki are two distinct entities with two different forms of governance - hence why I asked at the beginning, without accusing anyone of anything - whether or not that had changed from all the published sources I can find. If Kent Hovind had, or knew someone with, mod powers and whitewashed his article while throwing about legal terms there'd be an understandable 'discussion', especially if he then locked a community page to stifle debate. Just because Nutty's throwing around legalese and RMF like some sort of law enforcement shield doesn't mean I don't want an explanation. And I shall continue to want one until someone shows me where it is written that RMF can summarily take over and enforce whatever it wants, in absolute opposition to what is already out there for us to find/read. -- 02:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You're not listening. It's not "on a whim" or "whatever it wants" or "because I fucking say so" - it's, in your own words, "Things that are definitely going to cause us legal problems should be removed, and their reinsertion frowned upon until legal advice says otherwise".  I don't know why this seldom-used page being locked for a few hours inconvenienced you so much, but it's over now.  Let's all get on with our lives.  07:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Three points: This is far more attention than anyone should have ever given to this. Sterile (talk) 12:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There is plenty of explanation here. On multiple pages. Seriously.
 * Insulting someone, even indirectly, and then expecting something from them, while common on RW, is not rhetorically sound. See Phil Plait's "don't be a dick" speech.
 * Griefers want attention. Giving it to them only empowers them. RW folks are notoriously poor at understanding this, but think about what you are doing.

Page locked
Any reason why the page is locked. Acei9 23:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * People not wanting to deal with Brxbrx drama in the middle of their night.-- Mie kal  23:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * We're now following 'Night Editing' procedures as pioneered by A. Schlafly Esq. -- 23:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Can it maybe be unlocked? Acei9 02:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Only by a mod or a tech. -- 02:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's unlocked already. 07:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ace McWicked, you don't have to weigh in just because you were cited here as part of a past incident. You're not Bloody Mary, you don't have to show up every time someone says your name.--188.138.1.229 (talk) 09:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll take that under advisement. Acei9 19:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I would like some space from Paravant
In which I lay out a series of abuses from @Paravant which until is generally resolved prevents me from safely editing RW.

Previously posted at Forum:Unpleasant_experience_of_rational_wiki until this was closed by the culprit himself, a clear conflict of interest. I had had a couple of weeks to think about 'do I want to double down on this bullshit, or shall I just semi-vandalise the content I contributed and leave'?

I've decided to double down on said bullshit because I love editing Wikis and I love this content. I'm producing expert analysis into cybercrime, Tor, the dark web in an area which is full of misconceptions, I'll be damned if I'm going to allow a pissed off wiki editor with an axe to grind stop me.

Actively misrepresents the mission of RW
Opens interactions with an abrasive attitude towards my first article in a pre-emptive AFD

Says as rationale: "Authors saving throw failed - We aren't the place to go when Wikipedia doesn't want to cover your topic.--'Paravant'"

Suggests that I somehow failed to cover this article on Wikipedia, something I did not attempt because I am very familiar with Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Still, it doesn't hurt to suggest that I might have failed in this request and that I might therefore be falling back to RW.

Let's compare that against RW's criteria for inclusion shall we from the mission statement shall we? "RationalWiki is not an encyclopedia"

"RationalWiki articles... vary from other wiki-based projects." "Our purpose here at RationalWiki includes ... documenting the full range of crank ideas." "We cannot and do not want to compete with Wikipedia" "collection and synthesis of sources into new ideas is actively encouraged. While references are always desired, writers should feel free to draw conclusions not clearly stated in a source, and feel free to synthesize multiple sources into a new pattern — although others may then argue"

So, my first interaction is a moderator telling me Rational wiki is not for.... what Rational wiki is for?

Anyhow, after the AFD turned around, it's a good thing he realised that he had jumped the gun and had misunderstood my motivations right? Perhaps having subject matter expertise on a matter will lead to leniency on sourcing at less that Wikipedia-notable sources? No such luck We aren't the land of "not good enough for wikipedia"--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I know that you are but what am I? Deku-shrub (talk) 21:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll say this Again - RW is not your "I'm not good enough for Wp so instead i'll shit on this website" and if you treat it that way, you'll find nothing good of your effort. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC) Apparently, still suffering from some kind of delusion as to RW's policies, proceeds to suggest my contributions (in an area I have worked on for months) is in fact 'shitting' on RW.

TL;DR - so it must be bullshit
After seeing me turn around my AFD but creating a huge amount of material to further analyse and Wikifiy, he decides to engage bitching and moaning about the state of the unfinished analysis, rather than directing the content to a draft space or simply editing the content himself.

Talk:Takedownman Tell me he sucks at techy stuff in the article, not via a blurb in a giant eye glazing list--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 20:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I would have thought you've could have assimilated that from the content so far. Obviously this needs a real narrative, I have to start with an index of key events though, so that's what I created. Deku-shrub (talk) 20:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

key events meaning "he covered something again". Woopty doo he's unoriginal. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 20:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Not only does he not appear to understand the mission of RW, he appears to have forgotten how to edit and suggest edits to a page? Or perhaps he never learned this skill? I guess they teach nihilistic whining in moderator school but not page structuring, draft or article development technique.

Vindictively claims ignorance then abuses mod powers
So, people can be dicks. I hear it's allowed. Moderators can be dicks too, also allowed, but not particularly fun from my point of view. But abusing such powers just to 'make a point' is where I draw the line.

Deletes a I was working on fully debunking, ignores it's context Deletes the red room animation image from the claiming "No, shit image is shit and describes nothing" despite it being fully contextually described on Red Room and  "that is neither clear nor useful, nor is it even a good image". You know where the picture is now? On the fucking Wikipedia page where I don't have to deal with vindictive pricks with selective comprehension and questionably delegated deletion privileges.

The rest of the pages I'm forced to do from memory because their very deletion log has been purged. These are:
 * File:Videodrome.jpg - PV claimed this lacked context, despite perfectly adequate context
 * File:Chatroom.png - the same
 * File:Red Room.png - PV claimed this also lacked context, despite being we sourced via a reputable dark web journalist and was deliberately included as a great example of SPOV.

PV did not flag, bring them to anyone's attention or god forbid adding the missing contextual information. So I reuploaded them, explicitly attaching their source and context to their description, so that they could not possibly be taken out of context. Well that wasn't enough because clearly deleting images is a measure of one's e-peen and not the administration of any kind of quality control and content policy because he immediately deleted the images, this time claiming they violated copyright.

Sigh, reupload, populate the tedious fair use templates and done!

PV having run out of excuses to fuck with my content at this point had his mate User:CorruptUser block me for ~12 hours and delete the imagery again.

Conclusions
I can't be having this, seriously. I hope to get some of the shit I collate here published some day like with my previous efforts from my Wikipedia based research. I like Wikis. I like collaboration and constructive criticism. I like being able to point someone to a web link saying 'read this shit and educate yourself' and know that it can be expanded by others and continuously edited for completeness and accuracy.

What I do not need is moderators willing to:
 * Misrepresent the RW mission
 * Mischaracterise my efforts in every way they can
 * Abuse their deletion powers and lie about it whilst they do sp
 * Abuse their site relationships to enact suspensions

I do not wish for the love and respect of all on Rationwiki. I just want to be left the fuck alone to collate my research online without having to deal with the attitude and abuse of powers I've had to do.

Why can't we all just get along? Deku-shrub (talk) 22:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Corruptuser is hardly my mate and I never went all sneaky about to get him to do something for me, i'm a man and i'll dirty my own hands if I feel like playing dirty thank you very much. I'm also not on some vindictive crusade against you, so this coop is amazingly frivolous of a non-existant HCM--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * My apologies. Clearly he's a unrelated 3rd party, now proven incapable of reviewing your lies and abuses which I choose to attribute to incompetence rather than malice. Deku-shrub (talk) 19:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It's also conveniently in the wrong place. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:04, 15 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
 * Note that Paravant is not a "moderator". Pretty much everyone is a sysop at RW, because why not? You can undo pretty much everything ... This particular user has been active for several years, is known to be a dick, and is not at all representative to the RW community as a whole... Carpetsmoker (talk) 00:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that Paravant is indeed a "moderator". See Special:ListUsers/moderator.   00:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh really? Wow... Carpetsmoker (talk) 00:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Forum:Unpleasant_experience_of_rational_wiki is not "closed". The last comment there is in fact mine from Sept 10th. In a Wiki environment you are never going to be left the fuck alone as you request. That just cannot and will not happen. Personally, I hope you just get on with improving and expanding the articles you have already started. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 01:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was currently closed, I said it was closed by the person in question stopping further discussion at the time, a conflict of interest. Believe me, I would like to continue with my work but if I have to work with people the community will defend when they lie and abuse their power (notice he doesn't even bother denying this?) rather than seeking consensus, how can collaboration take place? How can I reliably submit anything under such conditions? Deku-shrub (talk) 19:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps by first not assuming RW is the lesser-quality version of wikipedia and when told this, not respond in riddles and gibberish? That tends to leave people with a bad-faith expectation of you. And second, there was no attempt to end the conversation, it was locked for around 5 minutes because people had hijacked the page for a unrelated feud. Hardly persecution of you. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 19:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Is someone talking? I suppose someone could be but that would be a conflict on interest trying to directly interact with me when I'm trying to have their person held to account for their vindictive misuse of power. So I suppose I must be talking to myself. Deku-shrub (talk) 19:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not a conflict of interest for Paravant to respond to your accusations. Can you please clarify what actions you are looking for here?  20:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a conflict of interest from my perspective. I seek to stop interacting with him as a goal. What I'm seeking is appropriate censure for abuse of power (which has not even been denied) so that I can safely resume editing safe in the knowledge that such behaviour is not tolerated by the community and that there are consequences to such transgressions. Deku-shrub (talk) 20:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Good luck with that. I've restored those six image files.  The deletion log hasn't been purged; you can view it here.  20:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've redeleted the chart, as somebody whose had Faggot thrown at me in both non-gay and gay fashions, I have no interest in seeing the wiki host any image using it in a derogatory way, even if it plans to debunk said image. One without the word is perfectly acceptable, of course. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * points to the conflict of interest editing Deku-shrub (talk) 22:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Why is this on the talk page?
I am abstaining from taking any side in the dispute for now, but  WHY IS THIS ON THE TALK PAGE?. And on a somewhat related note: Why does a talk:Chicken Coop page even exist in the first place? Does it have to be this meta? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought this was the correct place, should it be on the main page? Deku-shrub (talk) 19:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This is hardly a Coop case as there is no HCM to solve. This is still a dispute between editors--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 19:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Why has the coop been mod-blocked
Is there any reason to this? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:22, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course. :-) Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you can deal with not editing for 5 minutes while I respond to both your inane statement and the question.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I did not notice the time limit... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * perhaps look more closely before commenting on things, useful advice for life in general--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:32, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe the software could be updated to make such time-limits more easily visible... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What does that have to do with Paravant, if anything? &#60;-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-&#62; (talk) 22:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Little to nothing. But in my humble opinion, an update to some aspects of RW's software would be a good idea... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Maybe you should try to reach Gerard or his underlings. &#60;-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-&#62; (talk) 22:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I made a thing
Access here: http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=RationalWiki:Chicken_coop&action=edit&section=new&preload=Template:CoopPreload/Starter&editintro=Template:CoopPreload/Instructions

This is what it looks like: CoopPreload


 * 1) Is something like this worthwhile?
 * 2) Is binary voting acceptable? (I figure: Coop action is binary, and so voting must be. I concede that I might be totally wrong here; alternatives welcome!)
 * 3) Is it possible that forcing formalities might, against all odds, reduce HCM?

06:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the "Please specify a timeline" bit refers to. A time line for what? A sort of expiration date for the coop case? A milestone plan for the run of the coop case? An expiry date for any sanctions suggested?
 * I'd also suggest either a binary sanction (sanction vs. no sanction) or a slightly more subtle three tier system (sanction vs. nothing at all vs. warning) which might be a bit more useful as it would allow those who consider the coopee's actions to be out of order, but don't want any formal sanctions (bans/vandal binning/desysopping etc.) to vote in a way that clearly signals disapproval with the coopee. In the tripartite system a simple majority (subject to considerations of its preponderance over warning and especially nothing at all votes) would trigger a vote on which formal sanctions should be taken. I see no way out of such a runoff electoral system if we're to avoid a ballooning list of various punishments. Also, any goat/comment sections should appear below and clearly separated from the voting (as a sort of appendix). Or so my two cents' worth goes. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * My only real issue with it is that a canned system restricts the chances for the mob to weigh in, which is what the coop is for, before voting.-- "Paravant" Talk & Contribs 06:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you're right about the need for a less strict format for hashing things out, but I think that keeping the vote at the top and having explanatory and discussion sections separate below might allow for a compromise between consensus building and decision making. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me. The only thing I would like to see is some sort of stronger warning a the top of the page expressing the idea that the Coop is a LAST RESORT after all other options -- taking to the talk page, asking for a mod to moderate, stepping away for a cooling off period, whatever -- have been exhausted. Said warning should also encourage people to limit their comments to the narrowest possible scope of the situation, to avoid dragging in unrelated issues/users, and to feel free to just STFU if they have nothing productive to add. The Coop needws to be a weapon of last resort, not a go-to place for bitching. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 07:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Added to main page. 05:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

In practice this is total shit. Take a look at this. First comes the section title that the coop plaintiff wrote, but it's just an empty section; then the accused's name as a section title, bunch of links, several near-empty sections, some of them with a meaningless "1. None" in them, and one with an unsigned statement that the plaintiff didn't actually write & which commits us to at least 24 hours of voting (not a good thing, considering the kind of crap posted in the coop recently), and finally the plaintiff's actual comments. This template is a hindrance to dialogue, readability & navigation. Get the fuck rid of it already. 00:12, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * FCP, sometimes you have a tendency to too much wiki bureaucracy. This is one of those times. Queexchthonic murmurings 00:20, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I removed the first two headings (they're just formatted text now), reformatted the voting note. 02:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * tbh, I see no need for such a template at all. Although it did act beautifully as a honeypot for the concern troll. Queexchthonic murmurings 10:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Heh. 15:11, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I think the problem with a template like this is that it encourages use of the coop, and fundamentally the coop shouldn't be used if at all avoidable - David Gerard (talk) 14:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * My hope was that formalizing the coop would make it less used, since using it would take longer and people would have to think through what was wrong and what they wanted. (I also wanted the message "only use the coop if absolutely necessary" to be part of the edit screen for starting a coop) 15:11, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Quite the opposite. Your template encourages the editor raising the case to set what the outcome should be & other editors to immediately start voting aye or nay rather than discuss options.  17:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I could set it so that the voting area is hidden (though still present) until [X] time after the original post. Is that sufficient? Or should there just not be a voting section initially at all? 17:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There should just not be any of it. What actual problem or need is this thing supposed to be addressing?  18:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The need for FCP to create pointless bureaucratic templates? Bicycle  wheel Toxic mowse.gif 18:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I am fighting the urge to delete this crap outright. Coop cases should begin with discussion and end in voting, and mechanically dropping in vote sections encourages the reverse - especially considering the mob's habit of piling on first and sifting the details second. Bicycle wheel  17:39, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * &uarr; Wot she sed Pippa (talk) 17:53, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * &uarr; Same. Typhoon (talk) 18:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * &uarr; Yep, that's the fundamental problem. Too much of what comes here should never have come here - David Gerard (talk) 20:48, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * &uarr; Idea that I just pulled out of my ass: Mod-lock the Coop, and only open it up when a mod sees a case worth Cooping. After all, they don't let every county prosecutor automatically bring a case to the Supreme Court. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 23:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I am against this proposal by Aging Hippie, as some coop cases are started in response to (real or imagined) abuse of mod powers. And I think it would reinforce the perception (correct or not) some may have that this wiki is set up top-down... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I never said it was a good idea. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 00:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I made the preload template hide the voting section until 24 hours after the coop case is posted. 00:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You haven't addressed the problem that this turns a discussion into a mechanical process. Bicycle  wheel Toxic mowse.gif 13:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ... and turning the discussion into a mechanical process enables wikilawyering, diminishing the noisy robustness of the mobocracy. I'm not sure how to go about cultivating a healthy mob culture, but this template ain't it. Alec Sanderson (talk) 16:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is that we've been getting a bunch of really messy, tendentious coops. I think that people will make their voice heard quite clearly, given how much the CC has dominated Recent Changes, even in this dystopic authoritarian maze of a preload. 17:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem isn't really the lack of a preload - David Gerard (talk) 17:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Messy tendentious coops aren't solved by messy tendentious templates. 19:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

If this was an AfD it'd be all over now. Bicycle wheel  22:32, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I like AgingHippie's idea. We are soon to have three more mods. If one can't find a mod willing to open a coop case, odds are very high the "case" doesn't belong here. We have had quite a bit of drama over tendentious coop cases. While I'm glad that Carpetsmoker was able to coop Ryu, and I endorse the results of that, his having been able to do that isn't worth the unfortunate trade-offs ---Mona- (talk) 21:41, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

So...
Delete or keep? Bicycle wheel  11:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Keep

 * 1) Guessing I'll be the only one. 15:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) If somebody finds it useful, let them use it. Just keep it voluntary. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 21:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete

 * 1) |₹Λ¥$€₦₦  [[image:Star_of_David.png|12px|link=Special:Block/Raysenn]] ''So you're telling me cocaine comes from scorpions? 15:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) David Gerard (talk) 15:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Pippa (talk) 16:16, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Keter (talk) 17:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) This is an aging wiki, but more process won't help it. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:16, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) Cosmikdebris (talk) 17:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) Sorry :-( Carpetsmoker (talk) 17:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 8) Not sorry.  Bicycle  wheel Toxic mowse.gif 17:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 9) No thanks. Typhoon (talk) 19:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Swiftly archiving
Just a quick note; I know for many of you a day or two may as well be a century, especially on the internet. However, this is not true for everyone. I would like to think that an editor's ability to contribute to discussion, in part at least, stems from their ability to provide considered comment rather than an ability to provide voluminous/prolific comment(s). Also please consider that there may be systematic differences in opinion between those who lurk and comment slowly, and those who comment continuously.

On this note, and without explanation (as I gather it would defeat the purpose of archiving the discussion), I would like to say that I disagree with the recent decision made in the coop. Tielec01 (talk) 05:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree as to the too-fast archiving. At the least, cases should stay open for 72 hours. I considered reverting but I wasn't sure whether FCP did that with his mod hat on.---Mona- (talk) 05:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * What makes it especially appaling is all the votes that indicated a consensus. The case wasn't allowed air. -  Kitsunelaine  「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 05:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The case was archived too fast for my liking but I suspect the reason for that was the ban was put in place on our ED friend so there was not really anything more to discuss. In the discussions, a secondary case emerged against another editor. That really should have become a separate case I think and left open to discussion for a polite period.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 06:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The secondary case probably should be restored. The first one was essentially mooted by the ban. Which is ok since I don't think that kind of case should be cooped -- it should be handled by the mods.---Mona- (talk) 06:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, i missed the ban being in place. I retract my prior post. -  Kitsunelaine  「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 06:12, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, the ban was imposed. I suppose when the consensus is so overwhelming a shorter window of time is not that awful.---Mona- (talk) 06:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Swift action on an overwhelming concensus should be encouraged, agreed. I just wanna know something will be done about the other problem here. -  Kitsunelaine  「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 06:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Consider my post to be the mildest of suggestions, as I find it hard to care too much about a pointless ban that can be circumvented by the most minimal technical knowledge. I also accept, as is pointed out above, that it seemed a ban was inevitable. Tielec01 (talk) 06:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Usually banning an editor involves a longer vote (theoretically a week) but when it's for doxxing RW editors it's usually done quickly & firmly. That's been the precedent with EE, Inquisitor Sasha, Arisboch, etc.  Nobody raised arguments against banning Michaeldsuarez, including MDS himself, so I went ahead with the ban after initial support without dragging it out any longer.  Re Shouniaisha/Ukuphendukela, I agree that it was archived too quickly & we probably haven't seen the last of this issue, but I've no desire to push the issue myself.  08:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

As an aside
The overall site coop edit::all edit rate is currently hovering pretty consistently at 15%-20% day-to-day. The amount of energy being expended on trying to decide to who ban is vastly vastly vastly exceeding the effort required to rollback or argue the actual points of contention on talk pages. That's not to say I think I can stop this by pointing this out, but I'd love to issue a "calm-the-hell-down". ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yup. 22:45, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * +1. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 15:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 15:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC) 15:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yup. I also find that some users seem to go from disagreeing to instant edit war to instant block war to instant coop, all within the hour. How about we talkpage things first and let that take the days required of a place that isn't a chatroom but a wiki - where things are supposed to be allowed to take time - before we even head to coop? More people need to learn to spend more time on talk pages before the coop is even riled, if you ask me. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * My take on this observation:
 * There seem to be a disproportional number of editors being disruptive.
 * It seems that RW doesn't have any good way to deal with these editors that *doesn't* require a lot of time and effort from the community.
 * Carpetsmoker (talk) 03:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Then what should we do?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC) 03:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Give mods the full power to ban anyone they want (which they will do with disruptive editors). No, really, this is how pretty much every community on the internet works, and while it's not perfect, it works quite well. It certainly works *a lot* better than this perpetual drama. Carpetsmoker (talk) 03:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * But, but, the high principles of mobocracy! Can we not see how pure and simple they make the wiki kingdom? 03:37, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You must be smoking something worse then carpets if you think, that people here want the mods to become the dictators of the wiki instead of what they are now.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 16:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC) 16:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't want mods as dictators, but the amount of disorder is pretty insane. It is more absurd than the Pareto Principle. We literally have 3 or 4 editors causing 90% of all the problems on this wiki. I pretty much support banning all of them simply to make it go away. I can't think of another solution since both sides are wrong at this point. If a mod did that I would support them. AyzmoCheers 18:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What makes you think, that he won't come after you next time?--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 18:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC) 18:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If nothing else, I'm a rather unnoticeable editor. I tend to make small edits that are noncontroversial. I certainly don't cause an uproar and edit wars. AyzmoCheers 19:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess that would work perfectly is the new authoritarian behavior agrees with your ideals and decides you are not worth the bother. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "Dictators" is nonsense. Mods will still be elected every year, there will still me multiple mods (so renegade mods can be checked). It's more democratic than your country. Like I said, this is how pretty much every other internet community works. Most of the people who "fear" these "dictators" are exactly the people who probably should be on the receiving end of a ban. Carpetsmoker (talk) 05:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I think with all of this drama its about time we brought back rationalwikiwiki in order to document all of this bullshit. Bubba41102The place where you can scream at me 19:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The drama just spread there.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 20:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC) 20:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * KF took over this role. It's a fun place where you can literally recruit editors in doxing threads! Carpetsmoker (talk) 05:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)