Difference between revisions of "RationalWiki:Chicken coop"

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Consensus)
m (Consensus)
Line 131: Line 131:
 
::::::::::In case no one remembers (most of you weren't here), the site was ''founded'' to be without rules.  Please go to community standards and read the oldest history - it was "started" as "something rules" and then changed to "standards" by the site's founder.  While the founder's intent is only what it is, I note that when it is convenient, "Trent said" is used to invoke Gospel. {{User:Human/sig|}} 04:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 
::::::::::In case no one remembers (most of you weren't here), the site was ''founded'' to be without rules.  Please go to community standards and read the oldest history - it was "started" as "something rules" and then changed to "standards" by the site's founder.  While the founder's intent is only what it is, I note that when it is convenient, "Trent said" is used to invoke Gospel. {{User:Human/sig|}} 04:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 
:::::::::::This is discounting, I suppose, that little gif on the right of the page...  
 
:::::::::::This is discounting, I suppose, that little gif on the right of the page...  
::::::::::::So is one of the rules that there are no rules? {{User:Blue/sig}} 05:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
+
:::::::::::So is one of the rules that there are no rules? {{User:Blue/sig}} 05:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  
 
{{outdent|8}}I've drafted a proposal in [[RationalWiki talk:Community Standards]] that hopefully will prevent future HCM. {{User:Blue/sig}} 03:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 
{{outdent|8}}I've drafted a proposal in [[RationalWiki talk:Community Standards]] that hopefully will prevent future HCM. {{User:Blue/sig}} 03:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:22, 12 October 2010

Archives for this talk page: Archive list (new)

Another Ace McWicked fan club meeting.

The chicken coop is for the avoidance, containment and resolution of cases of Headless Chicken Mode (HCM).

This page can be used for reporting cases of administrative abuse (abuse of sysop or bureaucrat abilities such as blocking, page deletion, or user rights management), general abuse (such as trolling, wandalism, and personal attacks), and conflicts which cannot be solved through normal talk page discussion (such as longstanding edit wars or article content disputes).

Please try to resolve conflicts with other editors directly through discussion on their user talk page before reporting them at the chicken coop. If you do report an editor's behaviour here, please leave a message on their talk page to alert them to this, so that they have a chance to discuss their actions here.

All editors are welcome to comment on the cases raised here, and to try to reach a consensus on any action to be taken. If no consensus can be reached, and the HCM seems to be escalating, the case may be referred on to the Loya Jirga for further deliberation.

Human

He persistently reverts clearly non-vandalism edits without any explanation whatsoever, especially edits by fairly new editors. This behaviour is toxic to good community structure, and I recommend that he either stop or be stripped of all his administrative powers. (As an aside, please change this page back to Administrative Abuse. The current name just reinforces its trivialisation.) Time time Phantom Hoover! 20:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Accusations would be better presented with a shred, or better yet, a cornucopia, of evidence. For instance, are you defending this edit? ħumanUser talk:Human 03:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Phantom Hoover about changing the page's name back, but I think a slapped wrist is a more adequate sanction for Human than desysopping. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 03:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, but a slapped wrist for what? No evidence has been presented. I move for summary dismissal on account of complete lack prosecutor's/plaintiff's case. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
You have reverted a number of my edits without explanation, for starters; several of which other editors later restored, if I recall. Diffs to follow. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 03:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure I have. Awaiting diffs with bated breath! Bring it on! ħumanUser talk:Human 03:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
[1] — this was objected to on the talk-page, by myself and at least two other editors. You did not appear to respond.
[2] — this one was out of the blue.
[3] — later restored by TheoryOfPractice, or whatever he is calling himself these days.
[4] — I changed this one back, and Blue reverted me, but with explanation.
Some others: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 03:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
From going through your last 500 mainspace edits, here are five instances in which a registered user (not an IP or an offensively named user) made a good-faith, non-vandalism edit which was reverted by Human without explanation:
Afterwards restored by another bureaucrat:
Not restored, but no explanation given:
I am not defending the quality of these edits - whether they were good or not is not the point. Blue Talk 04:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I also do not want to dispute the merits of the reverted edits in my diffs. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
And while we're at it, this one. 24.13.203.96 (talk) 04:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Wrong editor, BoN. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Damn, let's not allow evidence in my favor to prejudice the jury! You are pathetic. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Seems to me like this is more of a how-bad-is-it question than a did-he-do-it question. Just from looking at the provided links. But there should be some evidence on Human's behalf... Back to lurking... --Chthonios (talk) 04:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Lol. Compare what I improved and created over the last 24 hours to your incredibly important concerns. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

"whether they were good or not is not the point" really? ħumanUser talk:Human 04:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
(EC) Stop changing the subject. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Stop changing the object. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
(EC) New users don't give a flute about how many edits you've made, Human, all they see is your revert. Blue Talk 04:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Human, this is not about your other edits, but about your overuse of rollback. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Oops. Please show me the good-faith high quality edits by noobs (not LX, as that seems off-topic, doesn't it,now?) that I rolledback in the last two weeks. LICK YOUR MOTHER'S PUSSY doesn't count. Or do they? Tweenk? You guys can fuck off any time, I defended this whole issue on my talk page days ago. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Phantom Hoover's charge, while emphasizing the reverts of new editors, did not exclude others. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you caught this, but none of my examples were from "Lick your mother's pussy" or Tweenk. And does telling Nx to "go back under your bridge and stop wasting my time with your whiny orange boxes" constitute this "defense" on your talk page? Blue Talk 04:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
To address your other concerns: The first two examples I gave were from within a week. These edits were restored by other 'crats, so at least someone thought they were quality edits. Blue Talk 04:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I think human has been given enough friendly warnings already, and he has responded with abuse every time. It is time to decide whether we will just move on and ignore his abuse because he's the queen of the wiki, or do something about it -- Nx / talk 05:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Given his blatant denial and prevarication in the face of evidence from several editors, I am now in favor of a stiffer penalty than I was initially. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 05:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I reckon Human should just back off from being King of the Whats Allowed on Rationalwiki. I have always thought that. i9 06:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Lol, I agree with The Wicked One. Wait, King? Shirley you meant Queen? ħumanUser talk:Human 07:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Prevarication? Are you sure you can spell that, let alone define it? ħumanUser talk:Human 09:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Charge looks proved to me.
  • "He persistently reverts clearly non-vandalism edits without any explanation whatsoever, especially edits by fairly new editors."
Links were asked for and provided.
Is this contrary to RW procedure? Yes, see here.
As a punishment I suggest the meme "It's Human's wiki" should be changed to "It's not Human's wiki".--BobSpring is sprung! 09:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Seeing as about everyone has done this at one point or another, and Human just does it very frequently, I don't think he should be 'punished.' Rather, we should amend Community Standards to expressly disallow the practice (even if it's outlawed at Help:Etiquette, most people won't see that/listen to it unless it's at Community Standards). That way, the entire community would be held to a higher standard. Blue Talk 22:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Continued edit warring

Unless all parties stop this immediately and begin discussion, I am seriously going to start doing things that would qualify as administrative abuse in and of themselves. (And yes, I know that I am also guilty of edit-warring, but it's gone too far and needs to stop.) Time time Phantom Hoover! 09:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll back you, Hoover. 09:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
This whole thing is a tempest in a teapot. Have none of us something better to do? Oops, I guess busting on me is fun once in a while. Oh well, enjoy it while it lasts. ħumanUser talk:Human 09:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Persecution complex much? We are complaining about your refusal to acknowledge the concerns of others, even with sizeable evidence of your abuse of administrative rights, and your general attitude that you can do what you want, the community be damned. Time time Phantom Hoover! 10:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
"We"? Omigod, I count four so far? Or is it five? Fafucksake, I have been trying to use "undo" more than "rollback" since the sizzlefest on my talk page. I also suspect I use the "Mark as patrolled" more than any of you do. Make some sense here, can you? ħumanUser talk:Human 10:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I wonder why people keep criticising you? Could it perhaps be because you keep doing the same fucking things over and over again and show no sign of listening to other people? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 10:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

we first person plural, nominative case (objective case us, reflexive ourselves, possessive our, possessive noun ours)

  1. (personal) The speakers/writers, or the speaker/writer and at least one other person.

Everyone here but you is making sense. That you use the "Mark as patrolled" button more than any of us is irrelevant, that's like saying that Hitler liked his dogs, therefore he was a good man. -- Nx / talk 10:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

How to treat bunches of numbers

I'm not gonna take sides in the conflict above, but I have noticed the tendency by many (perhaps most) editors to ignore &/or revert BoN edits. When the community was a lot smaller, editors were keen to welcome any new potential contributors, but now it seems like I'm pretty much the only one bothering to put up welcome templates for BoNs. Remember that any BoN making good-faith edits is a potential editor, & whether they're made to feel welcome by other editors can make the difference between them sticking around & moving on. Even if the edit they've made isn't good enough to stay in the article, you can still welcome them & explain why you reverted it. Similarly if the BoN is making a criticism, even if they're going about it the wrong the way, try to engage them in constructive dialogue. Reverting &/or blocking without comment sends a very negative message & should be used for obvious vandals only.

My suggestion to everybody is that, if you see an edit (or comment) by a BoN in Recent Changes, have a look at it, patrol it (or undo if it's bad) & welcome the user. If you reverted good faith edits, tell them why, but encourage them to make other edits or discuss their opinions. It only takes a second or two to put up a welcome template. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 13:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Goodpost.gif Thank you, Weaseloid. May I also add that just because an edit may be shit, doesn't mean that it's not salvageable. If somebody makes a bad edit, but you kinda know what their point was and think it would be helpful, copyedit it and make it better. I know it may seem like a painstaking task, but that's what us regulars are here to do. AnarchoGoon Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living 16:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Gooniepunk's opinion

I wish to remain an outsider to the drama above. That being said, there are some fundamentals of Wiki conduct that every editor, be they a BoN passing through or the user with the most contributions, should be held to observe. The use of rollback should be limited to edits that are pure vandalism. However, barring that, if one chooses for whatever reason, to usurp the "undo" function, they should be held to the standard of going to the talkpage of the article and explaining their rollback, as well as having to go to the contributor's talkpage and explain that it's a rollback in good faith. In Human's case, he has stated before that he uses rollback because it undoes multiple edits. However, and I'm not sure if he or anybody else for that matter realizes this: you can undo multiple edits by loading and saving a previous diff-linked version. And this way, you can leave an edit summary and not piss all over everybody. And it's not much more difficult than rollback, either. On the issue of rollback use, I am in agreement with Trent's opinion that it should be limited and that, especially in the cases of new users and BoNs that are editing in good faith, it should be altogether avoided. This is because, if the user is Wiki-illiterate, they may not know what the talkpage is for or that it was taken to the talkpage at all. Plus, its also a matter of courtesy. Undo is like disagreeing with someone, rollback is akin, in my opinion, to flipping someone off. The Spikey Punk I'm punking my punk! 17:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree pretty much entirely, and will pretty much stay out of the drama too. Also, I noticed that with the undo button, as it lead to be unwittingly rolling back by signature to a much earlier version than intended.Scarlet A.pngbomination 17:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
While I have not managed to stay out of the drama above, I do agree with this. I'd propose that Community Standards be updated to include a section on proper use of the revert/undo functions that reflects what seems to be the overwhelming consensus (basically what you've said here). Admittedly, Help:Etiquette says this:
  • Undoing previous edit:
Only use "rollback" to remove blatant vandalism, or any other self-explanatory reversion (such as when someone blanks a page, or adds "4 HOT SEX, see THIS LINK!!!123" to a page). This sort of rollback can also apply to talk pages.
When reverting a good faith edit, use "undo" and state your reason(s) in the "Summary" box, such as "that was an intentional misspelling".
Often a good faith edit that doesn't resonate well can still hold information that is interesting, if it's just the style or wording that you think is wrong, then improve it yourself, stating reasons in the summary page. Do not just go straight to a user's talk page and tell them they're useless.
When reverting substantial edits, discuss your reasons on the talk page - a summary of "see talk" is usually sufficient. Copy the material that has been changed and place it on the talk page so everyone can see at a glance what the problems are.
but I think this section should be transplanted into Community Standards to make it more "official." And this:  ❝ they should be held to the standard of going to the talkpage of the article and explaining their rollback, as well as having to go to the contributor's talkpage and explain that it's a rollback in good faith. ❞  should also be added, in my opinion. Blue Talk 18:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Blue above me that proper uses of rollback and undo should be included in our community guidelines, as well as the need to explain rollbacks in good faith. Perhaps someone can propose this on the talkpage there (or I can when I'm not busy). Lord Goonie Hooray! I'm helping! 22:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Behold! The Wicked One shall utter Truth!

When I first started at RW it did take me a little while to come to terms with the place because I had some first off edits reverted by human, deciding they were not funny. Being the type of person I am I took a snarky line with him and gave him an off-hand dig by making an edit and asking him on his talk-page if the master of funny thought it was funny enough (something like that anyways - can't remember exact details). I had lurked for ages before joining (and had joined under a couple other user names previous) but I still felt that Human was some sort of Wiki-Ruler and can see that to someone very new he might be a little overbearing and respected but for the wrong reasons. Also I find it depressing when I see Human log on, after being away for awhile, and suddenly begin reverting a whole bunch of edits that he personally doesn't like. As someone who continually cried during the TK/MC blocking fiasco "That's not what we do at Rationalwiki" he should also take his own words to heart and remember that at its heart RW is a community project - that's what we do at Rationalwiki. i9 20:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't have said it better myself. As a newer editor, Human seemed a least bit overbearing, even if he is the biggest contributor.--— cm2 — 20:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
That said, I like Human as a person and believe he does a fine job. He could stand to loosen his grip though. i9 20:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Ditto to the above. Human should listen to, and accept, reasonable critism. Mass reversion of things that don't suit his idea of funny are disruptive and go aginst the spirit of the wiki. Totnesmartin (talk) 21:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
"Human should listen to, and accept, reasonable critism. Mass reversion of things that don't suit his idea of funny are disruptive and go aginst the spirit of the wiki." <---- Pretty much my thoughts, except without the tyops. The Spikey Punk I'm punking my punk! 23:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Ditto. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 23:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the typos. --Kels (talk) 00:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with the tyops. I My excuse this time is that I was using a craptop. Totnesmartin (talk) 09:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree that Human is very liberal with his use of rollbacks but I find them all in good faith even if excessive. I do not believe he needs to be stripped of sysop for any reason as he is a great contributor even if he could work towards communicating his decision for rollbacks a little better. Personally, I can show just as many times Human has cleared my off topic rants as decent contributions, for what it's worth. Aphoxema (talk) 23:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Nobody's suggesting he be stripped of his user rights. And a testimonial is the weakest form of evidence. Blue Talk 00:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Ummm. Yes they are. I think you should read the first post on the topic.--BobSpring is sprung! 07:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
No, that was "if he [Human] persists. Semantics, perhaps. Blue Talk 07:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Consensus

This is what the consensus seems to be:

  • The practice of reverting good-faith edits by anyone, but especially newbies, without explanation should be outlawed.
    • A section detailing proper use of the rollback/undo functions should be drafted and added to Community Standards.
  • Human's wrist should be slapped.

Blue Talk 03:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I stayed away from this page for about 24 hours due to wanting to let people express themselves, and to prevent me from making a further ass out of myself. I agree with all the above sentiments in this section, although I do have one minor gripe: making rules. We don't have rules here. However, advising people gently to not use rollback except for in cases of obvious vandalism - as SpoonieGunk pointed out, if there are several edits, the first one can be "edited" allowing a comment - seems like a good community practice to me. Peace out. ħumanUser talk:Human 09:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I have zero problems with rollbacks as I can just as easily hit "undo", all I care for is a rationale. Aphoxema (talk) 13:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I would agree with you about "rules", and that RW doesn't have them. But there are de facto rules, i.e. things the mob has made very clear it doesn't like - which is what Community Standards codifies. Blue Talk 16:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Is there a particular reason why we don't have rules? Is there a particular advantage to not having them, or is it just a "that's how it is" thing, like "we don't block"? --Kels (talk) 16:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
We do have rules, we just don't like to call them rules because we break them all the time. -- Nx / talk 16:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I think we don't have "rules" because we didn't like the CP rule system from oh-so-long ago. Much of what was created at that time was a reaction against the CP mindset.
Looking at our standards I'd say that we keep to most of them though the privacy one seems to get forgotten occasionally. Although the user page/talk page stuff is usually respected the LJ ruling about editing talk pages contradicts it. --BobSpring is sprung! 17:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Rollback should be discouraged rather than outright outlawed. In some situations it can be more useful to use rollback than undo, e.g. if you're undoing multiple edits by the same editor you can rollback then add a note on the talkpage with a difflink & an explanation. But generally undo should be preferred option.
One problem with rules is that they tend to need a firm authority structure to enforce them, whereas community guidelines tend to enforce themselves (loosely) by example & by peer pressure. The other important aspect is that a community standard exists because it is supported by the community (& only as long as it's supported) not because it's an iron law. If anybody queries why we do something or don't do something, the answer should be "because that's how the community prefers it" not "because it's the rules". WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Rollback itself shouldnt be disallowed, but doing it without explanation to the editor or on the talk page should be strongly discouraged via Community Standards. Blue Talk 19:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Also, per Goonie above, you can just edit a previous version instead of rollbacking for multiple edits. Blue Talk 19:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
In case no one remembers (most of you weren't here), the site was founded to be without rules. Please go to community standards and read the oldest history - it was "started" as "something rules" and then changed to "standards" by the site's founder. While the founder's intent is only what it is, I note that when it is convenient, "Trent said" is used to invoke Gospel. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
This is discounting, I suppose, that little gif on the right of the page...
So is one of the rules that there are no rules? Blue Talk 05:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I've drafted a proposal in RationalWiki talk:Community Standards that hopefully will prevent future HCM. Blue Talk 03:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)