Difference between revisions of "RationalWiki:Chicken coop"

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Gooniepunk's opinion: Making sub-section)
(Gooniepunk's opinion)
Line 77: Line 77:
  
 
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 [[User:Human|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 [[User:Tmtoulouse|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, of 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. {{User:Gooniepunk2010/sig|}} 17:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 
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 [[User:Human|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 [[User:Tmtoulouse|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, of 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. {{User:Gooniepunk2010/sig|}} 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.{{:User:Armondikov/sig}} 17:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:46, 10 October 2010

Archives for this talk page: Archive list (new)

Another Ace McWicked fan club meeting.

This page is for the reporting of abuse and other problems

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.) Harmonic wisest Phantom! 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)


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.) Harmonic wisest Phantom! 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. Harmonic wisest Phantom! 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. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.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. Punky Your mental puke relief 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, of 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. Gooniepunk2010 Oi! Oi! Oi! 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.pngtheist 17:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)