RationalWiki talk:Chicken coop/Archive6

This is an archive page, last updated 22 October 2022. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <7>

, (new)(back)

Suggestion

This page should be called "The cock fighting ring" because it becomes a blood sport at times. Conspirate (talk) 05:05, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

You did not read or understand, "As a final note, if you think this page is a good tactic to apply in gaming the mob into doing your bidding, you may be shocked to see your post archived quite swiftly." Bongolian (talk) 17:09, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

HCM level

I don’t want to be that guy stirring the pot, but isn’t this HCM 0 at this point? Drama on several pages, no one even knows what they’re fighting about, policy changes are being debated along with the legitimacy of several users’ assignment of rights... Sounds like the description of HCM 0. Fawcett (talk) 23:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

No way - not even HCM 1. This is nothing. Ace^Moderator 00:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

HCM zero to me was best exemplified by ADK's decratting everyone and Nx desysopping everyone. A fundamental upheaval of the site's structure--Hastur! (talk) 00:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

That's kind of my point though. Appointment of user rights is being discussed right now, which is really a change of the site's structure and isn't far off from what happened with the last HCM 0, as I understand it. Perhaps we're not QUITE where we were then, but it seems pretty close. Forgive me for being naive, I wasn't around back then. I could see Oxy stripping everybody else's rights if she somehow got access to an account with tech rights or moderator rights just to get back at everybody (again, I'm being serious, not poking fun, which is sometimes hard to tell on the net). Fawcett (talk) 01:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

This particular incident is barely level 1, as Ace notes above. There have been much bigger dumpster fires here that didn't burn out after a day or two like this one did. Cosmikdebris (talk) 01:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

It's not really dead yet though. Fawcett (talk) 02:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah it's dead. I've been on RW almost continually for 12 years and this is nothing compared to some of the other HCM's I have endured. Ace^Moderator 03:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I had tech for over a year, and I never saw fit to desysop and demod everyone. You all have the wrong idea about me, and I have been treated very unfairly by this wiki. — Oxyaena ^Harass 03:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

You absolutely have been treated fairly. You’re abusive, block heavy based on your feelings, continually LANCB, create drama every where you turn and then have the gall to say you’re being treated unfairly. You really, REALLY, need to do a lot of self reflection. Ace^Moderator 10:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

You have a terrible attitude and no friends. Please treat his as a learning experience, for your own good--Hastur! (talk) 16:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Hastur, do not turn this into a personal attack ("no friends"). I'm aware that you've had a rather troubled history here.[3] Bongolian (talk) 17:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Going back on topic, I was reading about “The Great Pissing Contest” and honestly what was so much “greater” about that than this? Fawcett (talk) 09:42, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

After reading the HCM article, isn't HCM Level 2 better suited for this situation than HCM level 3? Thunderclapper (talk) 13:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I can't defend myself in the coop

Because I have been censored and my vote was removed. That's vote tampering. GR (talk) 23:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I haven't seen you do anything that constitutes defending yourself--Hastur! (talk) 23:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Well this is what constitutes judge, jury and executioner. GR (talk) 23:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

LGM protected the coop, and I would personally take her advice and take some time to calm down. Soundwave106 (talk) 23:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Through a quick ban, I told you to stop reinstating your vote after I've been removing yours. You know I'm a mod, you should at least respect that decision. But you didn't. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:29, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I can't throw in a vote, what gives? — Oxyaena ^Harass 00:23, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Raven added a vote. I removed it. He readded it. I removed it. I told him to stop it or else I'll sysoprevoke and protect to sysop-only. He readded it. I guess I'll unlock the page though, since it seemed to have fizzled out anyhow; you're the second user to notice the page lock. Do not disappoint me, editors. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:25, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Maybe we should allow him to keep the vote, just to show those defending him who exactly they are defending.-Flandres (talk) 00:29, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@Flandres I don't think they're defending him per se. It's more they feel a certain way about bans, and also that they might think he can be reformed after a painful amount of talking to. Personally, I feel like shaming people for voting their conscience sets a bad precedent. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 00:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

When you put it that way, I can understand where you are coming from.-Flandres (talk) 00:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agree. I understand their position too. They have some goodwill in that he'll improve and don't want to set precedent for indef bans for people we don't like. I don't entirely agree in that assessment, namely that I don't think Raven will improve, but I do agree with the spirit of it. If that makes any sense. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I understand. Note that IRL even those close to me say I am rather ruthless as a person, so I generally feel less averse to emotionally painful last resorts like coop cases or long bans(just to clear up things both here and for future reference). I do understand I do not think like other people and they have a right to their beliefs.-Flandres (talk) 00:48, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I completely agree with LeftGreenMario's assessment. ShabiDOO 00:51, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal(I think this is the right place to put it)

After sifting through the archives, focusing on cases that came to a vote, I think the coop would benefit from a two round voting system. The first options would be permaban, temp ban(without specifying length just yet), and no ban. If temp ban wins, then a second vote is held between various lengths of banning(one week, three months, so on). My hope is that no opinion is outright discarded in the second round so a very close and contentious case can have a resolution that still reflects a firm majority. For instance, if temp ban won but a large amount of users felt the user in question did not deserve it they can still vote for the shortest possible ban in the second round, thus their views are not just voided instantly because an option won by one vote.-Flandres (talk) 21:51, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Hmm... Interesting. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 21:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

The right place to put this would be the talk page of RationalWiki:Community Standards.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 15:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's true for general changes. But if Flandres or anyone else wants to try to go this route for this particular coop, I don't see why not. Bongolian (talk) 16:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

So the first round renders a guilty as charged or not guilty verdict, and the second round a sentencing phase? nobs^{Smile, and be friends..} 01:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

No we should vote for everything yes/no and all penalties that pass (ban by 66% margin all others by 50% margin) are applied. If more than one pass then each one that passes is applied. ShabiDOO 02:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Given the time constraints on voting, my previous suggestion was not well thought-out. Bongolian (talk) 02:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Flandres. It is a good suggestion.S'chn T'gai Spock (talk) 07:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion 'the next'

Clicking on Recent Changes - last 500 edits' shows some 190 of said edits being made (probably more when I save this entry).

When there is such a flurry could there be a 'fox in the chicken coop pause' (whatever the cause of the disagreement). Anna Livia (talk) 19:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

It is better to let things play out. Otherwise resentments will build up and constructive corrections will not happen.S'chn T'gai Spock (talk) 07:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Retiring the coop

I think the community showed many times now that we can handle problems without going into HCM. I think we can archive this page and further sanctions can be voted on ATIM. GeeJayK (talk) 12:49, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Nah, keep it--Spoony (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Neutral - The last coop we had, 131, was held back in December. Before that, it was 130, which was back in August. So, since August 26, only one coop in 238 days. Meanwhile, several key penalty votes did take place in ATIM. Obviously ibans and lesser sanctions do still belong at ATIM, but I count 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 discussions that really could've been held at a coop but weren't (and this doesn't factor in iban, tban proposals that could've been a coop), which would render it impractical. The coop does tend to work better in controversial disputes but it seems we haven't had that in a while. The coop has some uses, but it wasn't used in a while. Iwouldn't really mind either way. --Andrew5 (talk) 13:12, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from, but some months of tranquillity is not necessarily a good reason to archive the coop. HCM is always a possibility just around the corner. ShabiDOO 13:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

There may be a misunderstanding here. If I remember correctly the Chicken Coop is for the community to try to resolve problems. The Mods really should only be involved if the community can't sort it out.

That really makes ATIM the "higher court". In practice I accept that the two pages fulfill a similar role as users tend to take problems to one or the other depending on their understanding.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 14:20, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

There are a few things contributing to the lack of activity. First of all is Scrooge abusing the coop in RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive125 and RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive126. Also, these things tend to have people complain at ATIM first, where it moves to Coop. But people now would rather it stay at ATIM. Also, Coops became more serious. I can tell Plutocow would much rather prefer to use ATIM, Techpriest prefers to use the Coop. It's kind of a personal preference. We might want to codify where one should be used over another in the CS. --Andrew5 (talk) 17:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Having the coop and ATiM both as dispute resolution forums defeats the original purpose of the coop (as I understand it to be anyway, perhaps some old guard like @Ace McWicked or @Nutty Roux could weigh in on this?). As I understand anyway, HCMs used to spread like a forest fire, so the coop was created so people could fight to the death like a bunch of chickens in cock fighting ring. Now discussions take place on ATiM and sometimes are moved here and sometimes not, splitting up disciplinary discussions (like the on-going discussion of 2friedeggs and Plutocow) between two pages. The coop is an obsolete relic of the old guard days and should be mothballed with a banner explaining the situation and the coop's role officially moved to ATiM. 71.208.x.x (talk) 01:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

We should start a vote. --Andrew5 (talk) 21:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I feel like such a vote, if it is even necessary in the first place, would be better off in CS. Plutocow (talk) 21:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

The coop is fine as is. The idea behind the coop is that it's for cases where there's sufficient degrees of drama that a mod can't simply resolve it by yelling at one of the parties involved to stop being a dumbass (that one is what ATIM is for). I do think that we need to probably at least establish a process for porting stuff more to the coop; the current situation between 2friedeggs and Pluto is a good example of something that really oughta be moved to the Coop but I don't want to do that because it resets vote timers even though the case has been for way over a day in ATIM by that point. -- Techpriest (talk) 22:46, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I think GeeJayK was saying that that is the reason why the coop is an unnecessary duplicate. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Techpriest on this. The purpose of starting things off in the mod noticeboard is to try to resolve things quickly, possibly without a vote. That leaves the coop for cases that can't be simply resolved. In the past, there were exceptionally long disputes in the coop that frayed nerves and cause quality editors to leave because of the drama. Bongolian (talk) 23:48, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

This whole thread is stupid. Andrew is stupid. Archive this vomit. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 23:52, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Since Andrew has proposed a vote, should we archive this thread?

This vote has been closed. Please do not add, remove or change votes. The result of this vote was: Vote passes (11-2, 85%): thread will be archived.

Yep —cosmikdebris talk stalk 00:24, 1 May 2022 (UTC) This thread is stupid. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 00:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC) What Duce said. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC) Bongolian (talk) 02:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC) It was never worth it in the first place.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 04:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC) Spud (talk) 04:23, 1 May 2022 (UTC) 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 04:26, 1 May 2022 (UTC) Scream!! (talk) 12:16, 1 May 2022 (UTC) -- Techpriest (talk) 15:55, 1 May 2022 (UTC) Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:56, 1 May 2022 (UTC) Commit it to the flames: for it contains nothing but sophistry and illusion. LeucippusSalva veritate 23:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC) Nope No, we should archive the coop. 71.208.x.x (talk) 13:26, 1 May 2022 (UTC) @71.208.x.x Why? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:21, 1 May 2022 (UTC) "It has been 121 days since the last squabble." LOL at that poppycock 71.208.x.x (talk) 21:40, 1 May 2022 (UTC) And the coop has been in use for 13 years. In the life of the wiki 121 days is a blink.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:23, 2 May 2022 (UTC) That is a terrible reason to mothball the Coop. Have you not heard of redundancy? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC) If you don't think the Coop should be archived, that should be debated, not just archived. Trying to archive it solely because I am proposing a vote, especially because I didn't even start the thread. Some of GC's arguments were ad hominem, such as "Andrew is stupid." Not ad hom, as I realized, just rude. It's honestly a bit upsetting. --Andrew5 (talk) 23:18, 3 May 2022 (UTC) You need to learn to read the room. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 00:09, 4 May 2022 (UTC) It's not easy to read the room over internet. I can;t see your facial expressions. --Andrew5 (talk) 00:52, 4 May 2022 (UTC) Goat One-sidedness aside, I feel like such a vote should be on the Moderator board or elsewhere. And that it should be a lot more broadly advertised. 'Cause TBQH, I had no idea this vote was even happening. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 01:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC) Nevermind, just realized the vote was for this thread, not the COOP. I blame it being Sunday night. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 01:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Anti-LGBT Commentary on the South Park Page

Moved to: Talk:South Park#Alleged Anti-LGBT Commentary on the South Park Page