RationalWiki talk:Chicken coop/Archive2

This is an archive page, last updated 22 December 2012. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>

, (new)(back)

Block anyone who posts on the project page.

16:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Mothball the coop

I have mentioned this several times recently and I am now putting it up as a proposal. The coop is nothing more now than a place to bitch at one another, it is the stomping ground of attention whores and the RationalWiki amateur internet dramatics society. My plan is basically, we mothball the coop, move all disputes to ATIM, and we set up some proper moderation procedures so that as moderators we can actually do something. I would prefer to see something similar to Wikipedia's arbitration committee, but maybe a little more free-wheeling. One major step forward would be a format where the disputed parties are not posting comments directly to each other as that just leads to one giant clusterfuck of sniping. - π 01:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I've been saying this for who knows how long! The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 07:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I said that a week or two ago. Along with a general amnesty. And shutting the wiki down for a few days to let everything simmer down. Didn't go down well. --Damo^Hi 01:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Replace "shutting the wiki down" with "shut down anything that isn't mainspace, CP-space and funspace," and I could get behind that. B♭maj7 "Voted in two different votes, but there was never a vote." 01:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

What about the other WIGO's--SmithRob (talk) 01:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

i could see the coop go - it has pretty much exhausted its usefulness. Ace^ace 01:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I would not be opposed to mothballing the coop. But how about, instead of obsoleting it altogether, keeping it but having the moderators chuck out any frivolous coopings? At least that way it would still be theoretically possible to settle a dispute without moderator intervention. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, we have been removing frivolous coopings in recent weeks, stemming from that new CS clause that stipulates the general cooping procedure. It's not worked, exactly.

I am definitely open to Pi's proposal. Blue (is useful) 03:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible for the coop to be cooped? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

If we're going to do away with the coop we're going to need its alternative defined and established first. The problem I see is that having anything but a coop by a different name is going to be quite a process, and could well exceed the moderators' mandate. Changes of this sort do not seem to come easily. It might be easier to establish a more definite process for how the coop works, such as working out when and how the bitching stops and the resolution part begins. DickTurpis (talk) 03:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Ban everybody except the moderators from posting anything here, except when cooping or invited. --145.94.77.43 (talk) 03:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

(EC) I think creating a more definite cooping procedure might be more difficult than doing what Pi proposed with ATIM. How could we work out a way to articulate the difference between bitching and resolution, for instance, when for the vast majority of cases they are inseparably intertwined? Blue (is useful) 04:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Unless you're going to remove community input entirely, you're never going to end the bitching. We just have to make sure the bitching can lead to something, such as a vote or whatever in which a decision in reached, or at least potentially reached. The problem with most of the most recent coopings has been that no one has even broached the subject of some sort of resolution. If, on the other hand, you want to remove the community entirely and leave it to the mods then we're going well beyond what the mods have been mandated to do. DickTurpis (talk) 04:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. All I'm saying is that we can't remove the bitching without also removing the resolution. We will always have bitching and people making colossal fools of themselves (like I did earlier). In order to counteract that, we should have more organization of how cases are dealt with; a timeline might go a long way in ensuring resolution is at least broached. It just seems to me that since a) votes are such a crucial part of case resolution and b) mods are the ones elected to handle maintenance and setting up of votes, it would be easier to implement that organization at the moderators' page. Blue (is useful) 04:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

(EC) If we required every cooping to contain a specific charge explaining what part of the Community Standards has been violated, as well as a diff-link to demonstrate the violation, that would probably cut down on frivolous coopings. I think the moderators would only be within their mandate to decide a case if the community is unable to come to a decision on it, and the moderators have not really tried to force such a decision as yet. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I've been a big advocate for diffs outlining every cooping for quite some time. I was initially one of the only ones to oppose Marcus's original block because there were no specifics and no links (I changed my vote once they were finally supplied). No coop should go anywhere unless this criteria is met. As for specific violation of Community Standards, I'd have to take another gander at them first. As I recall there's a lot of vagueness there. To respond to what Blue said, yeah, there's no way to end bitching if we wanted to. No, we just need the bitching to lead to something, which is where we've been failing, by and large. Where exactly the organization is implemented isn't terribly important, but will need input from more than just the mods. DickTurpis (talk) 05:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

If the coop is trashed, then moderators will have to take a far more proactive stance dealing with abuse and disputes.--User:Brxbrx/sig 18:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

True, but that largely goes beyond the powers they've been given. DickTurpis (talk) 20:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Or, possibly, people will learn to be adults and deal with each other. sterile^talk 20:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that'll happen. LowKey (talk) 23:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The coop exists because people don't act like adults. RationalWikians vandalize each others' pages, flame each other, stalk and harass each other, and block each other (which is mostly just bad when it concerns someone that can't unblock themselves)--User:Brxbrx/sig 05:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC).

Brx you pretty much have no idea of RW's culture. I will never cease flaming you. Ace^ace 05:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Me neither. –SuspectedReplicant Support democracy - Ace is the REAL moderator 05:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Me either. 05:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

You guys don't get it, do you? This isn't your little circle jerk anymore. That is no longer RW's culture. RationalWiki is now made up of Blue's, AD's, Ty's, UHM's, and ListenerX's. I suggest you try ED. You'll fit in better there. You're a minority here, and a rather annoying one--User:Brxbrx/sig 06:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow. I know I am arrogant, but wow. LowKey (talk) 02:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

You can really get a sense of your place in the scheme of things when a creationist can score hits from you. Ace^ace 02:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

That was a "hit?" You know, Ace, maybe you should join MarcusCicero in making a new website where people like me aren't allowed. RationalWiki has changed, and you are an anachronism--User:Brxbrx/sig 03:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

You keep telling yourself that. Ace^ace 03:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty, um, bold to try to define the whole community and tell everyone who doesn't fit in. Not many would agree.--^talk 03:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

"Arrogant." The word you are looking for is "arrogant." Or possibly "conceited", or even "narcissistic" if you want to go way out on a limb. I am more than middling arrogant (e.g. arrogant enough to both know it and consider it justified) and, "Wow," really was my first (and indeed second) reaction. Chicken-sound only compounded it by pretty much reitterating the sentiment. LowKey (talk) 07:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Please take the time to review site politics in the past few months before you dismiss my interpretation of it.--User:Brxbrx/sig 20:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

┌<span style="display:inline-block; overflow:hidden; width:em;">────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘arrogant enough to both know it and consider it justified Yeah well I wouldn't go that far LowKey...Ace^ace 07:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

If you are a good boy I'll give one of those bacon treats you really like. Ace^ace 06:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

If he's a very good boy, I'll sit him down with the other children and teach him how to use apostrophes. –SuspectedReplicant Support democracy - Ace is the REAL moderator 06:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ It is encouraging that the coop itself seems to be largely silent right now.

Or maybe not... Peter ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 05:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

It comes in bursts. --Mack Coster (talk) 03:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Think about it man. You don't need this many sockpuppets. Could you please try and keep them confined to RWW. Say you will. 08:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow, we are quickly approaching RobSmith levels of staying on topic. DickTurpis (talk) 13:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Blue (is useful) 16:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Organize cases

Believe it or not, when this page first started there was an attempt to organize how cases were opened and dealt with. Some of it worked, some of it didn't, but I think we might see less flaming, bad tempers, sniping and bickering if we try to reintroduce it. Here's what I propose:

Proposed procedure

1. Case is opened; accusing party must:
   1. Briefly summarize what he or she is accusing the defendant of
   2. In the left box of the side-by-side template below, detail specific accusations and provide diff links
   3. Notify the defending party on their talk page
2. Commentary period lasting 1-2 days, in which:
   1. The defendant may post an official defense in the right box of the side-by-side template, but is not required to
   2. The accusing party and defending party should avoid direct confrontation
   3. There will be a separate section in which users can summarize their opinion on what should be done to resolve the case, in bullet-point form
   4. Common sense should prevail in deciding whether to dismiss the case prematurely
3. Final, official vote, which (a) moderator(s) will set up to decide what should be done

The side-by-side template I'm talking about

Prosecution statement Off with her head! Blue (is useful) 20:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Defense statement Not going to dignify that with a response. Blue (is useful) 20:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

What I'm proposing is really very simple, it just gives a little more structure to the page. Blue (is useful) 20:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

This seems a little too formal, perhaps. I agree that any case should be opened with a specific grievance, and that should be backed up with links, but the side by side template seems mostly unnecessary and burdensome. Much of the rest of it seems to be common sense, and basically how we do things already: giving the accused a chance to defend themselves, community input, etc. Part 3 is the important part we seem to overlook far too often. DickTurpis (talk) 18:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Hm. I see the side-by-side template as easy to use and important to avoid direct sniping between the accuser and defendant. I think in the free-for-alls of our recent coop cases, we suffered from lack of organization that prevented consensus. A little formality and procedure would go a long way. Blue (is useful) 18:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I see your point, but i'm worried about, well, let's just call it "Wikipedia creep". I basically gave up starting AfDs and RFCs over there because the damn process was too burdensome. Side by sides are fine and all, I just don't think the should be mandatory. DickTurpis (talk) 00:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

If someone doesn't use the format, someone else can always add them, not a major drama. But important note: Don't use proper headings in the side-by-side, it screws up the "Edit" buttons on the page... at least it seems to on this one... (((Zack Martin)))^™ 00:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

(EC)Is it really "Wikipedia creep" to have a designated section for the accuser to start the case and for the accused to write a statement in their defense? Notice that I specified that the latter would not be required, and we already require the former in the community standards. I'm not suggesting any sort of rigid procedure, only some guidelines and time constraints. Blue (is useful) 00:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so, but I've haven't been here that long. ArchieGoodwin (talk) 13:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Coop cases could do with a little bit more structure, & this might weed out some of the frivolous/shit-stirring ones. In early days (e.g. see Coop Archive 1) admin abuse cases had a loose courtroomish structure, with subsections in which the defendant & prosecuting parties made their case & were cross-examined. Side-by-sides would be OK but I'm not sure about one user taking on the role of "accuser" throughout the proceedings, as this will tend to make all Coop cases into User X vs User Y conflicts. Although the case is initiated by one person, anyone should be able to able to add comments equally without one user needing to take overall responsibility for the case against the accused. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The onus is on the user opening the case to provide evidence and a summary of the charges. I'm not suggesting that one user take on the role of prosecutor for the entire thing, only that they have enough to actually have a case. Blue (is useful) 19:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Too heavy handed; should be Complainant and Respondent. nobs^{Empty Recycle Bin} 00:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Rename

Rename this "The Bridge", because this is where one can always find the troll. LowKey (talk) 03:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Minor correction - Trolls Tielec01 (talk) 04:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm generally only seeing the one lately. LowKey (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

But the troll is in the dungeon! Blue (pester) 04:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Rename?

I hereby propose we rename this to "RationalWiki:Emo corner" because this dump that we used to use for a redress of grievances has become just that: a place for all the attention and drama whores around this place to muck up the entire WIki with their useless bitching and whining about shit that doesn't effectively matter. The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 07:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

What about "The Bridge"? Anyway, I think that if you take a closer look "Chicken coop" already covers your description. Peter ^{tanquam ex ungue leonem} 08:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

We could just delete it & let people sort out their own problems. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

We could always just get rid of anyone who complains too loudly. Trials are just attention whoring and drama waiting to happen, right? Blue (is useful) 19:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't give them any ideas--24.251.69.25 (talk) 19:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I think we need a pressure release valve, but maybe we need a better, more systematic way to separate venting from a real issue that needs to get the whole site involved/voting. Tmtoulouse (talk) 19:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

A form of wp:WP:RFC/USER? This is working better than the Loya Jirga, but you need an informal consensus or majority of co-sponsors to bring a formal case before the community. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 19:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A big problem is that users feel empowered to arbitrarily declare some complaints invalid, and they unilaterally move them to the drama dump.--"Shut up, Brx." 19:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

RfC/USER is an informal non-binding process. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 19:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I hereby propose that we heap scorn on people who bring frivolous coops, which that decision being made by the moderators. 19:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

And coincidentally, the current majority of the moderators happen to be of a like mind with you--"Shut up, Brx." 19:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Lol no they're not. I would have shut down all of these recent coops except for UHM's. Though I object to bans under most any circumstances, there was too much behind that one not to take it seriously. 19:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I would have shut them down except for UHM too, Nutty, except I'm in a bit of an unfortunate situation in that I'd be roundly condemned from people like you for being an authoritarian cunt for doing it. Blue (is useful) 20:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

You're an authoritarian cunt for any number of reasons beyond that, as well as mostly incompetent, but do you care what I think when it comes to doing what you think is right? 21:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

(EC) You have COOP/RfC, the only requirements being complaining editors & respondents seek to discuss differences/conduct in good faith to resolve problems. Trolling & shenanigans on those pages then can be introduced as serious, damaging evidence of bad faith before a wider community once a consensus is achieved among supporting/opposing editors to begin a formal COOP. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 19:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Rob, you always point to Wikipedia as a model for what we should follow. The only thing we share with that website is that we use the Wiki software. Given that WP is a completely different kind of project than RW, I don't see how their structures are very relevant to how we do things. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 19:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, there is something to be said about a two stage process but its probably overly complicated and doesn't help with the problem, which is that not every issue that pops up here (maybe even a minority) requires us to pull out the vote. Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

But if we give any discretionary authority to the moderators, we'll be just like CP and the wiki would surely die! Blue (is useful) 20:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The Mods were given discretionary power to step in on just such a circumstance. Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Really? That was never made clear, and many folks have bristled at moderators acting unilaterally under any circumstances. I think in this case, having explicit guidelines for how to lodge complaints and how mods will deal with them would be a very good thing. Blue (is useful) 20:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

It was quite clear to me, that mods had that power. But the last few "incidents" are about a bunch of children from all sides, playing king of the mountain. And I am not interested in giving that recess game more power by using the great Mod gifts. If real problems come up, they are addressed. Like the UMH situation which was put effectively to a vote. The assumption that Brx was involved was cleared up, and his vote came out correctly as well. It works. This concern trolling is exactly that.Godot Tout s'acheve par commencer un autre voyage 21:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

(EC) Just have em begin with a COOP/RfC, and at some point if enough participants feel enough damning evidence has been gathered, have a vote to begin a full COOP. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 20:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

ACtually, which circumstances the mods can enter into has never been defined. In a sense, Blue is right. On the other hand, are we taking this too seriously? sterile^talk 20:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe we are. I prefer clear defined rules to cyclical HCM--"Shut up, Brx." 20:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

"I prefer clear defined rules..." This experiment is so fascinating in its elucidation of various personality types. ħuman 04:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

It is; Blue, Brx, and Rob express a need for order & structure, whereas the RW mob, like CP authoritarians, see no need for rules and dispense with the few that exist when it suits their whim. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 19:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is arguably the most successful wiki, with thousands of editors having developed countless protocols- protocols that have been thoroughly tested by time. While we are different than Wikipedia, I don't see any issue with taking lessons from it. In fact, I would recommend it. Wikipedia works.--"Shut up, Brx." 20:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia works for Wikipedia. We are not wikipedia. We should not be. We will find our own way, but "the big guy does it" should NOT be a valid reason for looking at anything. Personally, as long as people are whining, joking, or whatever else it is, this seems like a good room for it as any. When real problems need addressed, they get addressed. despite the drama whoring.Godot Tout s'acheve par commencer un autre voyage 20:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

What Godot said. If I wanted to be part of an online community that was built like WP, I'd edit at WP. Stop trying to make RW that which it is not. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 21:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I've got an idea. LET'S BURN THIS MOTHER FUCKER TO THE GROUND. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Amen. --Robledo (talk) 01:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Its all kinda pointless is it not? RW is kinda like a loose sand beach. Great place for hanging out and fun (and watching a beach fight) but try to build anything more then a chair on a stand, and its going to fall right apart when the tide comes in. --Revolverman (talk) 21:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Loya Jirga failed, the COOP has been successful in some instances, but is in danger of not being taken seriously. A two step process of COOPing could be tried with a COOP/RfC. Disputing editors can troll it out, support/oppose coalitions formed, consensus gained if the issue is so burning. Then it can brought to the floor for a vote (COOPed) or die in committee (COOP/RfC with no concensus). nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 21:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing it - but honest to god, what great problems are you all seeing that are not being addressed? As I stated above, the major UMH (?) situation was dealt with. The Brx accusation was vetted, and the vote turned out appropriately that he should not be censured for something he didn't do. So what exactly are we "not doing" that needs to "be addressed" or our "project will fail". Godot Tout s'acheve par commencer un autre voyage 21:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Dragging the whole community into a vote for a bunch of idiots playing king of the hill. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 21:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ People who don't want to get dragged in don't come to this page. The problem to which you refer does not exist. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 21:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm a noob...but the impression i got was that this was the ultimate mobocracy. And it looks like everythings working just fine. Thats all i had, carry on....my tildes didnt work....--Dorianin (talk) 19:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Some people recognize other people bully editors. If an editor is bullied off the site because he gets ganged up on, recruitment of editors will suffer. In the end you have a CP-like single-minded group. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 21:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

No editor has been bullied for edits he or she made. At least not in the last year, though it did happen in the past. Editors have been taken to task for not being more careful. (myself included). Editors have been told to do better research. Editors have been followed (myself included) to fix problems with their writing. That is not bullying that is knowing where problems are likely to occur and fixing them. And yes, sometimes people who fix other's mistakes get ticked and say things in a rude way. They've done it to me. But it's not bullying. it's venting that "god damnit, Gadot, learn to type the word THE". You get frustrated making the same corrections to some people's work. Others, yourself and Brx, have been bullied, but that's cause of the way you act at large, the things you do here, the things you don't do here. But I don't have lots of sympathy for something you bring on yourself. So, as TOP said "the problems you see, simply do not exist".Godot Tout s'acheve par commencer un autre voyage 21:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Rob and Brx and Maratrean are not very intelligent, and they mostly just troll and create drama. Fuck 'em if they can't fit in. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 21:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

(EC) That's bull. I was reading the BBC Charter two days ago from a link another editor graciously provided; then certain unnamed editors trolled the fuck out of me. I haven't been able to finish that or comment on it. That sort of bullying is an impediment to mainspace contribution.And we've been over this a hundred times. One of the same editors began trolling a discussion he had no part or interest in this morning, complete with the obligatory half dozens reversions. [1] None of this in inducive to effective collaboration. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 22:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Notice how those sorts of things never happen to Godot, or Ty, or me, or Goonie, or Bob, or Weaseloid, or Psy or Gerard, or Nebby or Nutty or Ace or Occasional or Mikalos or PeterL or Sophie or Taj or The Cheat or Crundy? But they do happen to you and Brx. I wonder where the problem might be. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 22:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

One thing I've noticed here: honest editors are rarely harassed. They start getting harassed when they start whining about stuff beyond the external workings of the wiki. If there are real problems, yes, they should be addressed. but again, much of this (and the reason I for one don't involve myself in playing hall monitor) is cause you bring much of this onto yourself. unlike the schoolyard I keep referencing, you are a grown up. able to deal with the consequences of your actions. Godot Tout s'acheve par commencer un autre voyage 22:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

(EC) Dunno; anti-Christian bias? But notice Godot, or Ty, or Bob, or Weaseloid, or Gerard, or Nebby or Nutty or Occasional or Taj or The Cheat or Crundy don't bully or troll editors, either? nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 22:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

But you do troll, so that's what you get. End of story. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 22:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I've never had a single problem with anyone here, and as my user page said, I got a lot of beliefs people here disagree with. --Revolverman (talk) 22:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

(eC) Because you haven't doesn't mean it doesn't happen. But let's not get off let ToP derail the topic. The discussion is over (a) either renaming the COOP or (b) try out a two-step process of venting before the community is asked to vote in the COOP, or (c) status quo. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 22:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ a. That won't change anything. b. The idea that started this conversation was that the Coop was being used for superfluous reasons, acting more as a drama dump. Creating another page for that to happen won't change the fact that it happens, it'll just create yet another space for it to happen in. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 22:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

That's where it should be. Then when a consensus is formed in an RfC, the rest of the community can be asked to involve their time in the COOP. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 22:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

It's a stupid idea that won't change anything. If the drama at the coop bothers a user, they can ignore it as easily as they can ignore an rfc. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 22:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

ToP, looks like you just ran another editor off. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 23:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Fuck, if he can't stand a little heat, he shouldn't be in my kitchen. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 23:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I thought he left because of Rob's stupidity. Ace^Moderator 23:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I intend to simply Drama Dump any coopings that seem frivolous from now on, and I suggest other mods do the same. Of course, any mod also has veto power: if I dump a cooping you feel needs consideration, then just undo it.--^talk 23:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Good plan. The process is supposed to be that people try to resolve these things among themselves, & only refer them on to the Coop for community input if they can't. People seem to be forgetting the first bit & taking things (even inconsequential stuff) straight to the Coop. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the coop should be a last resort. First, users should try to work an issue out on an article talk page or a user talk page; the second step should be to request mod input at ATIM; then, only when the issue is too big to resolve without some kind of big drama-y debate and vote(s), should the coop be involved. Blue (is useful) 03:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

So get with some other mods and formulate it a bit maybe? Say that when something is brought to the coop they should link to diffs that show an attempt to resolve the issue using other means? Tmtoulouse (talk) 04:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

AD's approach won't preclude that and the mods already have broad inherent power to structure these things however they wish. AD's program of flushing the toilet needs to be accompanied by locking the page down so people don't snowball the disruptive negative energy they throw at proceedings initiated to fuck their enemies into RC clogging sideshows. If a mod determines there's no probable cause for a coop then he needs to get people out of the courtroom or the process will remain the farce it is. Also, I move for a vote of no confidence in Blue. 14:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

"I think the Coop is being used frivolously and should be off limits except for real ugly clusterfucks. Also, hey, let's pick a random mod who has a history of tensions with some high-profile mods and pick on her out of the blue for no apparent reason whatsoever. That'll calm shit down" Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 14:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Goonie

We should block Rob for an indeterminate period of time. El Taj^{Don't make me do stuff} 22:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

He brings nothing of value to the project. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 22:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

How many times have people said Rob should be kicked out, and nothing ever happens. I don't know why people even bother saying it anymore. --Revolverman (talk) 23:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Something to do. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 23:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Because people like saying things. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 00:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I was kidding. The recent trend of voting and blocking everyone here for every little thing is depressing, not to mention reflecting so badly on the project. Rob's ability to derail any conversation by making some inane, retarded comment is everyone else's fault for rising to his bullshit. On the contrary, we should block everyone who engages him and expects to gain anything out of the experience other than a headache. El Taj^{Don't make me do stuff} 10:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

So about 90% of the wiki at one point or another? --il'Dictator Mikal 23:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The entire concept of blocking people from the site is such anathema. TK is dead, and the mob killed MC, to our embarrassment. Rob is funny, but often confused about how wikis other than wikipedia should function. This one has no rules. ħuman 04:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

My suggested name - RationalWiki:The turd bath. Then those who wish to bathe in turds, can. 89.163.171.250 (talk) 14:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree with the BoN above me. The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 14:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Rename and perspective

We previously renamed this "Chicken coop" from "administrative abuse" to highlight how mundane and ridiculousness of most of the crap said here. However, people have once again started taking it as Extreme Serious Business and "cooped" has become a memetic verb of choice. So, I propose to rename this again to something new and stupid like "bum closet" to help remind people that this is stupid dick swinging via text communication, while millions of people die of AIDS in Africa because their governments would rather trust in magic beans, while children even in "civilised" countries are maimed and killed by easily preventable diseases because people have been tricked into believing the treatments for them cause autism.

Get the fuck over your collective selves already. ^{d hominem} 10:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

About four months ago. LowKey (talk) 12:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Can we just mothball it? As this point its community costs outweight any useful service it may or may not serve. Blue (is useful) 17:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

As long as we have disputes here (and we will) we'll need some sort of place where we can try to resolve them. Whether it's called the Chicken Coop, Bum Closet, Shithouse, Thunderdome, etc. doesn't matter. Renaming things doesn't fundamentally change them. DickTurpis (talk) 16:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm in favor of mothballing the chicken coop and moving Dispute Resolution^TM to the all things in moderation page, as many people have suggested over the last year. Blue (is useful) 16:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Here, there, what's the difference? Admittedly having both may be a bit redundant, though they allegedly serve different purposes. DickTurpis (talk) 17:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not one to run around Moding everyone. And i think the "all things in moderation" if it's even used, should be kept for very serious issues. What is serious? I don't really know, but it's not Bricks (even as I loath the child), it's not Nutty or Ace, it's not Blue and rule following, it's not Human and generic jackassedness. It's things that could actually cause harm to the wiki. As human says, there is virtually nothing that gets done in these "spats" that cannot be undone with one click. it might be annoying to see Human unilaterally delete something, it might tick you off to see Bricks call someone a name, but to "act" on any of that, is to buy into the childishness of the entire thing. Just clean it up (or not, if you don't want to be bothered; no one is making anyone be a janitor) and get on with yoru life. GodotWhen I graduated, Cognative Science of Religion didn't even exist! now it's everywhere 17:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I was under the impression that "all things in moderation" was for use by our excellent, periodically-elected, pro-active mods; and the the coop was for use by complaints by general plebs. Having a specific place to complain about people's actions means that such complaints won't get spread over the whole wiki. Changing the name or repainting the walls will not change its use.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 17:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

WfG, you know I agree 100% with you, but advice like that is not always followed. "Don't buy into the childishness" is a great guideline, but what happens when it's inevitably broken? We can't just chastise those who create drama and hope that they'll stop. I know - I've been a drama creator. I don't think any of us is innocent of abetting drama and childishness. We can't just shake our heads and say "If people just acted more grown-up, this would never have happened!" It might be true, but it doesn't do a thing to help.

Bob, I don't think having two separate complaint pages is effective or efficient. People are notoriously bad at judging whether something is "serious enough" for moderation, and this is compounded by the fact that the moderators' actual job was never clearly defined. Blue (is useful) 18:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

They have (in theory) different functions. RationalWiki:All things in moderation is for moderator discussion about whatever they think is appropriate.

• "This page is for Rationalwiki's moderators to discuss any issues that need discussion, or are brought to their attention."

The coop, on the other hand, is for community discussion about problems which people perceive exist. In the event that our moderators actually decide to get together and moderate it seems appropriate that they should have a special place to do so.

In any event, changing the location of the discussions will have no impact on the content of the discussion.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 20:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually that quote is from the project page - the talk page bears no such stipulation, which is where the sitewide discussions have happened in the past. The problem with what you're suggesting is that the moderators have no moral authority at the moment, despite being elected, to moderate anything. And if we confine the moderation to one specific page, when another exists that's far less likely to see any sort of mediation from moderators, that'll be where the HCM is born.

It's more than the mods lacking moral authority, it's that the position itself takes on neither moral authority nor moral responsibility. They're not expected to do anything at all, and there's no such thing as "conduct unbecoming of a moderator." I can pontificate further on this topic but we may want to wait until the mod elections start next week. Blue (pester) 22:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey I moderate the shit out of things. We're supposed to keep an eye on repeat problems and intervene when necessary, hopefully without having to use any powers. I try to do that.--^talk 00:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

You do intervene quite a lot, and are fair and even tempered in your interventions I think. It's not at the will of the mob or not at the will of the mob. Which is one of my general problems with "mods". Are we there to enforce things the mob direct, or just act on our whims.

@Blue. You really want to insist again that mods are some kind of super users. sighs. Mods are users, they (we, whatever) are not, should not be held to any higher standards than anyone else, nor should they ever use their powers for evil. GodotWhen I graduated, Cognative Science of Religion didn't even exist! now it's everywhere 02:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

@ Godot. Sigh.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 06:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Look, goodwill is not a way to run a community. I am still absolutely mystified at why moderators were created in the first place. I tried to make the best of a bad situation, but clearly Trent left his intervention into May/June 2011 incomplete. Can somebody explain to me what a moderator does that a regular user shouldn't be able to do as well? Blue (pester) 03:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Too many cooks spoil the soup, as our massive brawls should make very clear. From the beginning the moderators were intended to be "for emergency use only," and when they have actually acted in that manner it has been successful — the voting procedure reform, for example, or your invocation of the Snowball Clause on several developing crises. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thank you. Blue (is useful) 03:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

"I don't even." 05:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought members of RATIONAL Wiki would be fully aware of the power of a rebrand, not least because dragging across label-based inferences seems to be the number-one sport in internet debating land. ^narchist 00:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

We could take a leaf out of Keith Olbermann's book and call it the "Morons' Echo Chamber." ListenerX^TalkerX 03:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Just a thought

The RobSmith cooping of 24 July 2012 was brought forth by one Ochotonaprinceps, a person who had been here only since 6 June, 2012. While we would all like to thank Ochotonaprinceps for giving us this "special time" maybe this sort of thing is exactly what should be done by the mods?

If a crisis presents itself to a user or users then they should approach a mod to open the coop. If the mod they've chosen doesn't open the coop then they would be free to makle a nuisance of themselves approach another mod and so on and so forth. C®ackeЯ 21:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

PRO - would stop people running to the coop every time their toe got trodden on, as has happened too many times.

CON - mods would become gatekeepers, and pro/anti cooping arguments would break out on their talk pages. Sophie^Wilder 10:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Given the complete inability of the mods to manage - or even show interest in - this situation, I would say your idea is pretty much stillborn. --Psygremlin (talk) 10:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Given that the Rob situation has blown beyond the initial offence and is now textbook molehill mountaineering I'd take being asked to show an interest in him as a profound insult. ^postate 10:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The Rob situation blew up because firstly the people who should have taken action didn't and secondly, because a bunch of hypocrites got involved, who see protecting a troll as more important than protecting the integrity of the wiki. --Psygremlin (talk) 11:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

But everyone now has forgotten about what the original issue was and it's just a continuation and exacerbation of an existing vendetta. If you want to duke it out with Rob over something, feel free to start something in the forum or the debate space. Do, please. But blocking or continuing this process now, 48 hours later, is completely ineffective. ^pathetic 11:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Cracker's suggestion seems pretty good. In principal, coop cases should be brought by anyone, but there are far too many frivolous cases which create much more conflict than they settle, so it would helpful to be able to skip those. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Another possibility is that coop cases have a time limit, say 36 hours (or whatever before we have a stupid argument about hypothetical time periods for something that may never happen) from the case being brought to case closed. If you missed it, tough shit. At least it would stop this endless mewling and puking at each other. Sophie^Wilder 20:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Or...or

A problem as I see it, is that there are no repercussions upon those who bring a frivolous or reckless cooping. If there were sanctions for the bringers of the cooping then this would (in my view) cut down these instances. I would go further, not only would sanctions be placed on those bringing an unsuccessful coop but on successful ones as well. People would think twice about having someone blocked for a week if they have to sit in time-out themselves for a day or two. Of course this is only a suggestion and only a bare-bones one at that. This could easily be gamed for fnu and giggles, fer instance. 08:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

The troublemaker speaks

I'd like to say, in my defense, that I was trying to use the coop for, essentially, what it's for. Because the alternative was people wheel-warring over Rob's rights and block status and trolling each other across multiple talk pages as well as WIGO:CP. I brought it here to try and consolidate the arguments and find a rational, adult resolution to the problem that is Rob vs. half of RW's active editors. As I do not have franchise, I've essentially stayed out of the ensuing series of arguments. I didn't realize that I'm on a wiki with a bunch of children who can't resolve issues in a mature and responsible manner. I was trying to do the right thing according to the Community Standards. I'm sorry for intensifying HCM, but all I did was accidentally catalyze the discussionclusterfuck of flaming by concentrating it onto one page. That wasn't my intent, and now I know better than to expect responsible conflict resolution here.

Maybe cooping should be limited to those with franchise according to the standards, at the very least, in order to prevent dumbdumb newbies like me from assuming RW works anything like its documentation says it's supposed to. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 10¹³ points 12:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

You didn't realize you're on a wiki with a bunch of children who can't resolve issues in a mature and responsible manner? Christ, you are a n00b. DickTurpis (talk) 12:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The repeated block-and-desysop fest that prompted me to bring Rob to the coop in the first place should've been a hint, in retrospect. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 10¹³ points 12:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

One one hand, I think you did the right thing. It at least stopped people wheel-warring, and got them down to actually discuss this matter. The fact that none of the mods seem to be unable to give a shit, should kind of indicate that what Rob did was not that big of a deal to most people. Big deal, offensive speech, hurrah, whatever. It's just a few people with thin skin that seem to be determined to force everyone else to agree that "THIS IS THE WORST THING EVAR!" that is driving this whole matter. Typically, the reason why a wheel-war starts, is because someone is trying to punish someone for upsetting them. Oddly, the people who have been perhaps most central to this wiki in the past realize that the traditional motto of RW can be summed up as "you're a motherfucker. Are you offended by that? Ok, you're a fatherfucker." I've fought with words against the idea of giving a soapbox to any crazy loon who wants to post his woo shit on "our" wiki, but they always remind me. Mainspace is for non-nonsense rationalism, while everything else is a free-for-all of bullshit and debate. In fact, we're repeatedly said that we WANT the woo people to come and debate us. If we block any tom-dick-and-harry who posts something we don't like, because it's "offensive", how is that ever going to encourage the very people whom we seek to battle to come here?

Point of this long verbose diatribe (you're new here, I'm old, you'll find out that I post them a lot): from what you say here, it sounds like you were using the coop properly, and it actually worked. Some people just don't like being on the losing end of the wheel war... --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 06:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I suspect our little bunny-like friend is a sock, but that's neither here nor there. He did no wrong, save perhaps of being ignorant of our institutional memory and the fact that combined we probably will have had over 40,000 person-years of therapy and/or rehab just so far.

As to trolls we need them.

If we got rid of all our trolls then we'd be able to get along better...or so the thinking seems to go, but we need them to have it a target for sniping and blocking and generalized bullying. If we don't have them, then we will turn on each other and the level of mutual respect (such as it is) will go way down.

Just the other night I got into it with Refugee over some minor matter and went right to insults and uncivil posts. Perhaps the recent rancor had nothing to do with that fracas, but then again, maybe it did. Maybe it did. 08:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

And who would I be a sock of, hmm? I have precisely one RW account, and it's this one. Would a photo with a datestamp help? Because I can say I'm not a sock until I'm blue in the face, but anyone who doesn't want to believe me isn't going to be swayed by repetition. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 10¹³ points 09:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Confucius admonishes the wise man: he who seeks to answer all speculation will run short of breath long before the world does.--^talk 11:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Retire

Our system of redress has failed completely, and the result of every recent abuse has been for the community to ignore it and wait for the status quo ante to return "naturally." I fail to see the point of this page, especially given the open disdain for its use among most of the "respected" users here. I will nominate it for deletion retirement and I will see this process through. Blue (is useful) 04:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Is this really the best time? Anyway, I would certainly vote against the outright deletion of the page, though mothballing is another matter. Peter ^{Subsisting on honey} 04:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

There's no such thing as "the best time". Your point about bigdelete is well taken, and mothballing is a better way of retiring the page. Blue (pester) 04:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the Coop has pretty much run its course. --Mikal ^{Harass Follow} 04:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Accomplishes what though? People want to sling shit at each other they are going to do it, lets giving them a room to do it in keeps things cleaner for the rest of us. Tmtoulouse (talk) 04:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I would presume the page RationalWiki:All things in moderation would serve a similar purpose, but possibly with more... well, moderation. Blue (pester) 04:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Communities need a pressure release valve, they will find the place of least resistance, if not here then it will wind up on talk pages or the saloon bar or WIGO:CP. Tmtoulouse (talk) 04:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I am a frequent visitor but avoid getting involved as it is often just a bunch of assholes farting at each other. So I agree, better that we confine the stench rather than having it waft over the rest of the site. Генгис^marauding 04:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm also of the opinion that we need a "release valve." I would prefer drama be kept off the Saloon bar and article talk pages. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 04:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

From what I've seen, it doesn't keep it all here. --Revolverman (talk) 05:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

(EC)Then all you would change is the venue. Better, I think, would be to set up a proper, proven alternative before you took the coop out of the equation. Peter ^{Subsisting on honey} 04:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

This page's purpose is supposedly to resolve conflicts between users, in addition to containing the HCM. It has not succeeded in the former, and more important in my view, purpose. If all that we can do is revise the stated purpose, that would be okay, but I am still of the opinion that some semblance of a conflict resolution system is needed. Blue (is useful) 05:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Before you dismiss the current system, propose something better. DickTurpis (talk) 05:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

How about the coop is used as the circlejerk (as it is right now) and we use another page to enforce the administrative actions. And with a more formal name. Osaka Sun (talk) 06:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like rebranding to me. Has that ever been effectual? DickTurpis (talk) 06:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

It used to be called Administrative Abuse. When that change happened, I have no idea. But have we considered splitting them into two? Osaka Sun (talk) 07:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

2010, and it doesn't sound like it was intended as a positive rebranding (and it didn't work if it was). Peter ^{Subsisting on honey} 07:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

There's a reason why "turdblossoms" is a category - David Gerard (talk) 09:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The coop does a fine job doing exactly what it was designed for. It's a drama dump. Those that like a good poo flinging session now and again - and that includes me - have a place to do it where it's harmless. Far better here that, for instance, the Saloon Bar. ATIM is comletely different - that's for serious business. Innocent Bystander (talk) 09:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

It was not designed as a drama dump. We actually have a Drama dump for a drama dump - the idea of this page as nothing more than a place to put drama is pretty clearly retconned. Look at the earliest cases brought to bear, back when this page was called "Administrative Abuse". You'll see people imitating a formal adversarial trial and taking things relatively seriously, for the most part. As the number of cases has increased dramatically from year to year, so has the weightiness of proceedings decreased. And the volume of cases has increased far more quickly than the volume of active users. Blue (pester) 14:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

So? People go where people go. As the old quip about Eisenhower and sidewalks goes (you don't put in the sidewalks till you see where people walk), no one uses "drama dump" on the forums, everyone uses Chicken coop. Tmtoulouse (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The overlap between the Coop & RW:ATIM is a bit of a hindrance, as things tend to start on one & get posted in the other one too, which doesn't really help with the whole containment & resolution thing, nor with transparency of process. Either we should have a clear distinction between the roles of the two pages, or merge them. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel}

"Before you dismiss the current system, propose something better."

It seems like only yesterday that we had an absolutely massive discussion/argument about what moderators should do. My proposal remains similar. Mothball the chicken coop, move resolution to ATIM, set out a specific moderation policy that includes moderators' duties, goals and what tools they can use, enforce provisions against frivolous abuse cases, enforce provisions against actual abuse, and actually move on as a site from being consumed by childish bullshit every time it rears its head. That last suggestion is particularly radical, I know, and I don't speak with spotless hands. We can't stop the childish bullshit, but we can try to improve how we deal with it. Blue (pester) 07:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

To distill my proposal of "something better" down into bite-size chunks:

1. Mothball the chicken coop and move all complaints of administrative abuse and related matters to the moderation talk page.
2. Empower moderators and respected community members to ensure that only serious cases are pursued at this page, and all other material is archived or moved to, say, Forum:Drama dump.
   1. This bifurcation of the coop's remit is very important - the conflict resolution goes to one page, while the HCM and silliness go elsewhere. Having both on one page - currently the chicken coop - is counterproductive in my view.
3. Empower said users to ensure that all cases reach a timely resolution, whether it be dismissal or a vote after sufficient discussion takes place. Blue (is useful) 14:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Err lol or something. In case you didn't notice, it's over. It lasted a few hours yesterday. But yeah. Let me know when you set up an election for Respected Community Members. 15:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Really, Nutty, any more of this willful incomprehension and it'll start looking like you just don't care about the site. But I do think we're getting somewhere when you at least forego an opportunity for name-calling and swearing when responding to me. Blue (pester) 16:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

What happened to getting rid of the coop?

Seemed that was the consensus--"Shut up, Brx." 17:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Given that I feel a humungous HCM coming on over our current rash of trolls I think we still need somewhere to drama dump. Innocent Bystander (talk) 17:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

You mean ...Forum:Drama dump?--"Shut up, Brx." 17:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I mean the coop. It's been very useful over the years as a place to have our little spats. There's a good reason why people use the coop and not DD. Innocent Bystander (talk) 17:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

There was no such consensus. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The proposal was to close the coop and bring coop-related material to RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation. And yes, there wasn't a consensus. Blue (is useful) 18:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

more coop!!! Occasionaluse (talk) 19:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I guess it was just a case of a loud minority that made me think there was a consensus. Me, I think I prefer renaming it and making more "serious." That way everything won't automatically be dismissed as petty drama when in fact it makes the site an unpleasant place.--"Shut up, Brx." 06:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)