RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive113

Summa Atheologica

I'm not bothered to explain the situation again, so I'll just copy my talk-page post which includes a message to Summa Atheologica themselves

Message to Summa Atheologica

Hey, man. As much as I am in disagreement on many topics with the editors that have engaged on this talk page, I am hopeful that they will agree with me that what you're doing now is sysop rights abuse. Let me break down why I believe that:

1. Let's start with the topic of baseless accusations. GrammarCommie (an experienced editor by your own admission) left a message recently which asked both you and me to provide evidence for our accusations of each other of dishonesty, and to refrain from these accusations if we don't have any evidence. I have a hard time believing that you didn't see this message, given that your userpage was linked in it. And, well, what do we see? Not only do you keep baselessly accusing me of deceit, but this accusation is part of your justification for blocking me. A sysop who, despite requests by experienced editors to stop, baselessly accuses editors with whom they don't agree of ill intent and blocks them for it? That's a red flag if I've ever seen one.
2. Now let's get to your actual rationale behind my block. You claim that I have removed a source, and that removing a source is an act of deceit. Beside even the mind-blowing hypocrisy of you having previously edit-warred ([1], [1]) out an edit which has been backed up by numerous sources(see actual talkpage, I've cut the cites because the fuck with the coop formatting Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Try our pumpkin spice lasagna!} 17:17, 29 October 2020 (UTC)), some of which I have provided to you specifically, and which represents the scientific consensus, and still accused me of ill intent, I have provided my rationale for removing the source and why I believed it was not appropriate in the edsum. Now, you may or may not agree with that rationale, but to block me because you don't agree with it puts you in a very bad light.
3. You didn't even try to discuss the issue before blocking me. I made one edit, which I even went out of my way to justify (something which I don't have to do and something which you have never done with regards to my edits), and I immediately got blocked. At this point, I'll just throw a couple of Community Standards quotes at you: "If an edit you make is repeatedly reverted, or someone has otherwise objected to it, then discuss it on the article's talk page", "We encourage everyone to join in, be bold, and engage in sensible debate, but expect them to do so without resorting to vandalizing articles or harassing other users ", "Blocking should never occur if somebody is attempting to discuss an issue in a reasonable manner". Needless to say, you violated all of those guidelines. Given that your justification for my last block, which you issued to me without warning, was that I didn't respect a Community Standards rule (which isn't actually on the CS page), it seems only fair for you to receive at least a 3.5-day block without warning. But I digress.
4. Parsing it all together. I have made one revert, which I politely justified. Then, without any attempt at discussion or even a warning, you block me because you don't agree that my justification is valid. You have repeatedly, against the Community Standards, assumed bad faith about me, and despite requests by other editors to stop, you not only continue doing it but use it to futher justify this block.

Update: the user has now started reverting my edits, which consist of correcting obvious spelling mistakes, on unrelated pages ([1]).

My solution

The jury is out on this one, but I really hope that all of my arguments are considered and an appropriate decision is made. I suggest that Summa Atheologica get promoted to autopatrolled and blocked for numerous violations of Community Standards guidelines, as their abusive editing strategy hampers progress on the pages in which they are active. The faults in their editing strategy have already been pointed out to them, and my own 3.5-day block that came without any warning was ruled to have been valid, so I don't think that any additional warnings are warranted.^{— Unsigned, by: Przciąszczłóśćiek / talk / contribs}

Comments

@Przciąszczłóśćiek: I don't know what @Summa Atheologica's problem is with your edits. You may have a legitimate complaint. But you shouldn't come to this page and try to get an experienced editor promoted. You should ask a moderator for assistance. Ariel31459 (talk) 15:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

So how do I ask a moderator for assistance? Also, why shouldn't I try and get an experienced editor promoted, given that their sysop rights mean that every edit I make comes with the risk of me getting blocked, or the edit reverted, for no reason? Przciąszczłóśćiek (talk) 15:09, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Try RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation, the mod's talk page. It is not typical for a new user to become litigious. A really good reason not to do it is it often doesn't turn out well for the complainant. Ariel31459 (talk) 15:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

And I should know all about becoming litigious; in my first month of being active on this wiki, I once called an experienced editor a "troll" just for reverting my pet edits and tried to ban them, resulting in me being tried in this Coop and temporarily promoted until I eventually regained the mob's trust; it was a stupid mistake that still embarasses me to this day. --Goatspeed. _{See what I'm up to}CircularRasoning^{Prototype lab} 23:53, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

This coop seems to have come out of another edit dispute. Does anyone have a link to that dispute/what pages it contains, because I can't see the full issue at play here to form an opinion. Also, please don't use ref tags on discussion pages, it dicks with formatting. I'd fix that up myself but I'm on mobile rn. Just make them regular links please. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 17:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I cut the citations to clean up the page. Also, the dispute seems to be happening over veganism, which I must confess is a page I have little interest in. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Try our pumpkin spice lasagna!} 17:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay I'm on desktop now, and I checked a bit. Thanks for the link Duce, this clears up a thing or two. This is a really small edit war from where I'm seeing it. Summa and Prz should just have talked this out on the Veganism talkpage, with Prz preferably as the initiator of that conversation. That said, Summa could perhaps have taken a moment to not bite the newbie and tried to initiate the conversation instead. That being said however, this is not worth a coop case, and certainly not going through the process of voting to remove Summa's sysop. A slap on the wrist for Summa for not quite getting the fact that explaining edits shouldn't be exclusive to people with existing accounts should all be that's needed. The block was warranted, edit warring is a short block reason. That's my stance on this entire thing, and given Prz is making an ass out of themselves at ATIM as well, I have doubts on their continued existence at this site, as they'll find these attempts at using the mob this way to be fruitless I think. As for Prz, in the future, try to talk it out and sometimes just take the L and come back later once you think you have arguments that stick. No argument on this site should be worth falling into your own sword over, and if it is, the site just might not be right for you. We typically use the coop in cases of serial or long-term abusive behavior, not because someone blocked you for 9 hours over edit warring. As Ariel said, this is more an ATIM case than it is a Coop case, and I'd suspect you'd get the same answer on ATIM from a mod as I've just given you. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 18:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Sirius, this case should be closed forthwith. Bongolian (talk) 18:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Sirius I think you have misunderstood my appeal. I am not appealing my FIRST block, which, while I still believe was rash (given that I was issued no warnings and was eventually blocked over something that's not even on the Community Standards page), at least had a reasonable justification ─ I did, after all, edit-war. My SECOND block, on the other hand, is a completely different story. The block that I am referring to is the one which is edsummed "Removing a citation. Nice try at deceit." This one I was granted for making just a single edit (this one). I did not edit-war; I justified my edit; and I had discussed this issue previously on my talk page. As a result, I got blocked (just for making this single edit ─ I didn't make any other edits since my previous block which got reverted) because, apparently, this edit was an attempt at deceit. This means that Summa Atheologica not only assumed bad faith about me, but he also blocked me exclusively out of this bad faith. Please look into this more closely. I am sorry I posted the issue on the wrong noticeboard. Przciąszczłóśćiek (talk) 19:31, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, I believe you have misunderstood my involvement at ATIM. I am not the one making any appeals ─ instead, GrammarCommie made a baseless appeal against me. Just thought I'd point that out so that you don't get the wrong impression of me. Przciąszczłóśćiek (talk) 19:37, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Przciąszczłóśćiek Baseless? Nay. I quoted you verbatim and bolded the relevant sections. Now, do you want to lie about me again? Be forewarned, if you do I'll block you for a month. And Just so you're aware, I don't make accusations of dishonesty lightly. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

And I have explained, twice, why your quote does not show that I have accused you of dishonesty. On the other hand, very clearly, you have very blatantly accused me of dishonesty ("Don't lie"). Of course, if you want to block me, there is nothing that I will be able to do to stop you, as Summa Atheologica has very unequivocally demonstrated, but if you want me to stop criticising your arguments, then you are out of luck. Przciąszczłóśćiek (talk) 20:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Przciąszczłóśćiek The words you wrote very clearly imply an accusation of intent to deceive. Fucking own up to it. If you did not intend to imply such, then formally retract your statement. Godsdamnit, this shit isn't that hard. "I apologize for implying that you were arguing in bad faith, that was not my intent". There, I even wrote the damned thing for you! ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie You do not have the authority to block anyone for any length of time simply for calling you a liar. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 20:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Helena Bonham Carter and Przciąszczłóśćiek I apologize for my threat. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:40, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie Good work, man. Not always easy to do when you're running hot, but that was swift and forthright, and does you credit. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie Are you kidding me? You literally want me to apologise about something that I put extra thought into avoiding. Stop it, now. If I believe that I've done something wrong, I will always apologise. To verify that, you can simply look at what happened the last time you pointed out instances where I have accused others of dishonesty.

Regardless of how much you want to believe it, I know what my thoughts are better than you do. And I can tell you that I specifically phrased my comment in a way that doesn't accuse you of dishonesty. I proof-read the comment and made sure of that. You won't ever get me to tell you that this never happened, and that my actual intentions were not to highlight how weak your argument was but to do something I'd just promised I wouldn't do.

I genuinely suggest we both drop it. Just accept that you can't always read others' intentions as well as you believe (I've already accepted that, as you know) and move on. Taking this any further will waste both my and your time. Przciąszczłóśćiek (talk) 21:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

This dispute is nothing right now, but I would recommend archiving this quickly before it can spiral out of control.-Flandres (talk) 19:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Archive? No one has even looked into this case apart from Sirius, and even Sirius misunderstood my appeal, as they seemingly thought I was referring to a different block. Przciąszczłóśćiek (talk) 20:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

The reason nobody has "looked into this" is because this whole coop case is an exercise in molehill mountaineering. You jumped the gun. Hell, you are the only one who even thinks this SHOULD BE a coop case.-Flandres (talk) 20:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Przciąszczłóśćiek Take my word for it, this is going nowhere and if you persist someone will block you because they can. Go on to bigger and better edits. Sirius gave you good advice. Ariel31459 (talk) 20:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I've looked through the diffs prz provided and read through the talk pages in question. This is a silly and frivolous coop case. Try to engage each other in more civil manner and please archive this coop before it turns into a even more of a flaming turd. Knight Commander^{In Service}_{To Her}^Goatness 20:17, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Fine, whatever. But moving on from this case begs a couple of questions:

1. What do I do when I get blocked for making an edit that one of the sysops doesn't agree with? Do I just accept that things like that happen and go about my editing? How can I ever be sure that some edit I made doesn't result in a block?
2. Does this mean that I am allowed to assume bad faith about users and make decisions out of this bad faith? Przciąszczłóśćiek (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

No one should block you for making an edit. If it happens it is a correctable error. Talk to people to resolve questions of sincerity. Don't assume any sense of control over the situations you find yourself in. Ariel31459 (talk) 20:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

It's a correctable error if it happens once. Okay, maybe twice. With Summa Atheologica, they have accused me of dishonesty on 4 independent occasions, with 2 of these accusations being used to justify blocking me. They have also reverted edits of mine on completely unrelated pages which were just obvious spelling corrections. I have tried talking to them, but instead of listening, they just ignored me and carried on doing things that I've asked them not to do. I'm not assuming control over the situation ─ I simply don't want to be blocked again for making an edit that a sysop didn't seem to like. I also don't want my edits reverted for no reason whatsoever. What do I do? Przciąszczłóśćiek (talk) 20:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, if I notice someone blocking you unjustly, I'll unblock. I hadn't been very active recently so this got past me. If no-one unblocks you, you should be able to contest the block on your own talk page. Knight Commander^{In Service}_{To Her}^Goatness 20:40, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I hope that this issue is sorted, then. Przciąszczłóśćiek (talk) 20:42, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I think we are done here. Ariel31459 (talk) 20:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)