RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/RationalWiki:Chicken coop

RationalWiki:Chicken coop | Result: It stays, even if ruffles Weaseloid's jimmies

RationalWiki:Chicken coop (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete

1. Rarely if ever now used for problems that couldn't be resolved with common sense & direct communication. Tends to encourage needless drama & pathetic tattletale behaviour rather than sincere attempts at conflict resolution. I think we can cope without it. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
2. It's quite entertaining for the too-common "Editor X hurt my feelings" rants which is exactly why it needs to go. MarmotHead (talk) 22:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
3. As a conflict resolution system it rarely actually resolves conflicts when it is used properly anyways. --Miekal 22:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Keep

1. Keep it for those instances where it is useful; encourage direct communication where appropriate. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 22:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

   I'd agree if it were used more as a last resort rather than how it's actually used: as the place to say "She breathed on my side of the couch!". MarmotHead (talk) 22:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

2. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{It took him 0.2 seconds to lock the door.} 03:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
3. It's a lightning rod, keeps drama in one place and facilitates mob decisions. Getting rid of the coop won't get rid of the drama, but it will allow it to spread all over the wiki. Tielec01 (talk) 03:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
4. --ZooGuard (talk) 06:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
5. I fail to see what would be achieved by deleting the coop. Any face to face stuff can simply (as Weaseloid just did) be copy/pasted to the relevant talk page, just like stuff more pertinent to the community standards can easily be copy/pasted to that forum with a notice attached. I think the coop remains useful for calling in the mob, but perhaps we shouldn't do that any more? ScepticWombat (talk) 10:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
6. What Tielec01 said. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 12:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
7. That, and what ScepticWombat said. It would be nice if we didnt have to do that any more, but given the self-selection of stroppy arseholes to be the usual run of RW contributors (and often useful ones) it's likely to keep on being needed. Alec Sanderson (talk) 13:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
8. I third both Tielec and ScepticWombat. --Castaigne (talk) 13:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
9. See Castaigne's justification. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 20:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
10. I'm allowed to vote here, right? Anyhoohow, my thoughts have already been said. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 14:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Goat

• Repurpose it for discussion and votes on site policies, because no one pays attention to RationalWiki talk:Community Standards and that's what it often ends up being used for anyway. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

  Is this a disguised keep vote? :P FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 22:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

  Depends on how you define a keep vote. I only wanna keep the title and the ONOZ and keyboard-assisted suicide pics, since those seem to motivate people into discussing and voting on things. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

  I feel like that might have more to do with the "editor X is in trouble" aspect, but who knows? PacWalker 03:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

  Quite possibly, but just being historically associated with that aspect might be enough to help. And there's also the fact that it's in a lot of people's watchlists, most likely. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 10:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

  People are creatures of habit, so you have a point on the history thing. How much of one? I have no idea, but the watchlist point is a worthy and more... firm? consideration for sure. PacWalker 11:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

  Although the picture is rather amusing, so it should be kept somewhere. :P PacWalker 03:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

  Would it be named the goat pen if we repurposed it? PacWalker 03:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

  Hmm, that'd be a nice name too. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 10:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

  Nope. The reason nobody pays attention to the Community Standards talk is because nobody makes efforts to advertise any proposed changes. (Hint: the Intercom and the Saloon Bar exist.) And the reason for that is that most of the people with institutional knowledge and/or attempting community building have left.--ZooGuard (talk) 06:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

  It was advertised for plenty of time, no one just paid any attention to it. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 09:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

  Wait a minute, I think we need to hold an exorcism as ZooGuard is clearly possessed by the ghost of Nutty Roux, or perhaps he's just channelling? ;-) ScepticWombat (talk) 11:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

  That isn't possible; nobody leaves and ever comes back. : P PacWalker 11:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

  Not to mention that it's not nearly vindictive enough to be a Nutty-post. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 12:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

  Yeah, it needs 3 insults to the RW community and a Parthian shot to be a Nutty post. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Antonio stella bottom tile} 16:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

  Parthian? The Mongols did it better. PacWalker 16:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

  Did anyone aside from Nutty ever figure out how to send a site-wide (urgent) message? FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 14:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

  Special:Intercom appears to have a trail a mile long of the things. PacWalker 14:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

  But all of the posts are from users with special privileges. ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 15:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

  He looks to have had staff and tech rights at the time, though, so... Never mind I'm just gonna shut up and think. PacWalker 15:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

  Tech rights are necessary. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 15:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• I did say "keep", but it's a conditional keep. I think we should be much more stricter regarding coop cases. It should be the community's last resource, when direct negotitation between the parties fails. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Never got enough hugs as a kid} 16:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

  But direct negotitation is rarely even attempted. Most coop cases I've seen lately just take the form of "someone did/said something mean to me" without even any pretence of trying to fix the (supposed) problem oneself before making it everybody else's problem. I do think the existence of the coop page actively encourages this attitude of talking (or complaining) about people rather than to them. If it wasn't there, editors with grievances would probably put a bit more effort into trying to sort stuff out themselves. Complaining to other editors would obviously still be an option, but they wouldn't be leaping straight to that option as often as they do now. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Can we close this? FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 23:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Presumably. Doesn't look like a consensus for deletion is gonna appear anytime soon. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)