RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive95

Sondland's interview on Day 4 of impeachment hearing

This might seem atypical for the Chicken Coop, but I think it makes sense.

I followed without intervening the discussion on the talkpage of Trump-Ukraine scandal. The issues was that @Tokyo and @A678 repeatedly tried to add a part of Sondland's interview on Day 4 of impeachment hearing, but such part was removed my some users and in particular it was strongly opposed by the moderator @GrammarCommie.

The part of the interview is the following:

Turner: No one on this planet told you that President Trump was tying aid to investigations, yes or no?
Sondland: Yes.
Turner: So you really have no testimony today that ties President Trump to a scheme to withhold aid from Ukraine in exchange for these investigations?
Sondland: Other than my own presumption.

(From CBS News)

The transcript is correct, the answers are not taken out of context, and the topic is relevant. Therefore I found very difficult to find a good reason why a moderator would insist to remove such part. Maybe it was because that was essentially the only part of the interview that was in the section Day 4? To test such hypothesis I added myself the other very important part of Sondland's testimony, where he claimed that there was I quid quo pro. Nobody opposed such edit. Then, after a while so that the dispute on the talk page was calm down, I added the Turner-Sondland part, which was immediately removed by GrammarCommie.

Long story short, now I don't see any explanations if not that GrammarCommie acts so that only information s/he likes can go on the Trump-Ukraine page, regardless if such information are true and relevant.

I understand that here is mob mentality, by I believe that moderators should be wiser than the mob and, for example, stop false information from going into the RW pages, even if the mob want so, and, conversely, let correct information go into the RW pages, even if the mob do not want that.

I don't want to spend hours on the talk page replying to posts that do not answer the question why true and relevant information should be removed by a page, hence I directly resort to the Chicken Coop. Melody (talk) 17:46, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Cool. — Oxyaena ^Harass 18:20, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Go away, Melody, and quit stirring up trouble.Summa Atheologica (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

1) One should not assume that because someone is a moderator that the person is acting as a moderator. 2) The explanation for removal was (as stated) roughly that the text insertion lacked important context (Talk:Trump-Ukraine scandal#Sondland is a key witness. His testimony should not be omitted). You can continue the discussion there if you have anything additional to add. 3) This is not coop worthy. Bongolian (talk) 18:26, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

This is not coop-worthy. And, although GC can be a hot headed editor, this is not an example of injudicious editing. It is a great example of republican gas lighting. Case dismissed.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:32, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ariel31459 Being a great example of republican gas lighting would be one more reason about why it should be on the page (together with an explanation of why it is gas lighting). Tokyo (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

No, my friend, it would be the only reason.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:55, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

And it is intellectually dishonest to insert text and argue for keeping it on one basis and then argue for keeping it on a contrary basis when it looks like that might be the only way to keep it. Bongolian (talk) 19:11, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Bongolian - Mods aren’t always “on” (I’m 99% a normal users and only mod when called upon). Secondly this isn’t a coop worthy complaint. Ace^Moderator 18:34, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

@Bongolian About lacking important context, personally I said that I am fine with more context being added and I also added a link to the article you suggested. Moreover I asked to you what context do you believe is missing and I got no answer. We have also @Melody adding more context (Sondland claiming that there was a quid pro quo), but still you claim that important context is missing. Unless it is stated exactly what is missing, to me this is just an excuse to endlessly remove Turner-Sondland from the page, no matter how much "context" is being added.Tokyo (talk) 18:37, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

@Melody Let me be blunter than I have been previously. This quote is misleading, given the GOP isn't even using the denial defense anymore, as well as the fact that Sondland is backed by not only Vindman's testimony, but transcripts (including several where Trump incriminates himself), the fact that only idiots and movie villains actually lay out their plans explicitly rather than using subtext, and the testimony motherfucking Bolton of all people. What I'm saying is that trying to undermine Sondland's testimony is both pointless and dishonest, given the larger picture. And this is why I will continue to defend my reverts of this pedantic, legally useless, nonsense. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:38, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

For some reason I'm coming to believe that Melody, Tokyo, and A678 are the same person. Does anyone else have an opinion on the issue?Summa Atheologica (talk) 18:40, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

"Sondland is backed by not only Vindman's testimony, but transcripts ... "

@GrammarCommie Similarly to what I said to Ariel31459. Then why not putting Sondland-Turner together with the explanation that you are providing about why the question was misleading? Explaining things is much better than hiding them.

@Summa Atheologica It doesn't go a day without being accused of being some other user. Tokyo (talk) 18:48, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

That I should consider to be even more indicative of suspicious behavior.Summa Atheologica (talk) 18:50, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

There used to be a user that talked largely in pedantic tedium in talk pages, mass pings moderators to try to enact changes, and quotes users in sentences before responding, which is very similar pattern expressed here. Not by Meldody however but by Tokyo and A678. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:56, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Four users decided to keep the revert. This is a talk page consensus. Stop trying to force those changes and get a move on. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:56, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario Was it UT, Aeschylus, or someone else?Summa Atheologica (talk) 19:04, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

UnlicensedThinker. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:08, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Ban all 3 for block evasion: Tokyo, A678, Melody. Bongolian (talk) 19:16, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Agreed.Summa Atheologica (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Dumb coop case, and I’m also starting to heavily suspect that either UT is socking, or we’ve got someone else who will end up being just as bad. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄^{Ask about our holiday specials!} 20:21, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

You're right. I thought the same, and stated so.Summa Atheologica (talk) 20:27, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

ban all the crazy people as sockpuppets of the crazy person banned earlier. :) EK (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Aye! Drawn your bansledgehammers, brave RationalWikians!AT THEM, WARRIORS OF RATIONALISM!!!Summa Atheologica (talk) 20:35, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure banning all three is required, at least not yet. And we only have a case for ban evasion for 1-2, to be honest. I'd also like to mention that due to some off-wiki content I've been consuming, I've come to the conclusion that there really are idiots of the same stripe who behave similarly without knowing it. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:33, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Idiots tend to behave alike: like idiots.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:36, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ If they look like UT, act like UT, and smell like UT...Summa Atheologica (talk) 20:40, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

LMAO, and I got accused of being "paranoid." Melody doesn't seem to me to be UT, A678 probably isn't UT, but some other persona non grata friend of ours, and for Tokyo it is all but certain they're UT. — Oxyaena ^Harass 20:59, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I would be inclined to disagree. I very much doubt that these three accounts could be so coordinated if they were not one person. Note how melody started the coop and didn't comment on it at all afterwards, leaving the other two two take up the case. Therefore, since at least one of them is UT, it is almost certain that the other two also are.Summa Atheologica (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Dunno, Melody could just be busy. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:35, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

(I hope I did not mess up with edit conflicts)

Well, I think that the fact that the case turned into banning all the users that disagree with the edit (because the must be the same person) speaks for itself...

@LeftyGreenMario The problem with saying that four users decided is that this is not a wiki where many users are active at the same time and votes about issues with the pages (with moderators acting wisely...) Browsing talk pages, it's very clear that there are relatively few users who are extremely active, particularly when it comes to immediately revert and remove, and other users who just get tired of debating on talk pages about information that are supported by sources. Let's say that regarding Sondland-Turner now we are three (if @A678 is still interested) against four: If tomorrow some other users wants to put Sondland-Turner on the page, we can be sure GrammarCommie will immediately remove it. It's not like each time the issue will be voted, and not every user will be there to vote again. Melody (talk) 21:36, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Oh come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!

It has not escaped anyone's notice that the three accounts were all created at basically the same time, not to mention relatively recently. Also, I noticed that the other two haven't been active recently here, and now Melody's back! Coincidence?Summa Atheologica (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I know this isn't exactly decided from a vote, but that's how talk page consensus rolls. I've been to Wiki where something as little as three users agreeing with maybe one disagreeing can be considered consensus in favor of the three users. Maybe three against four was a little close but overall this issue has been dragged way too long and has been wasting my time, especially with pedantry and obsessiveness with the small things while disregarding the overall picture. It's all over a small edit in the end, and it has been wearing on my patience when I see it dragged to coop. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:42, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I know this isn't exactly decided from a vote, but that's how talk page consensus rolls. I've been to Wiki where something as little as three users agreeing with maybe one disagreeing can be considered consensus in favor of the three users. Maybe three against four was a little close but overall this issue has been dragged way too long and has been wasting my time, especially with pedantry and obsessiveness with the small things while disregarding the overall picture. It's all over a small edit in the end, and it has been wearing on my patience when I see it dragged to coop. It's still a majority against you, Tokyo, and A678 (A678 seems most suspect in general), however. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:42, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

And who enjoys stirring up arguments for their own sake?Summa Atheologica (talk) 21:48, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario I understand voting for everything would be too complex, but what surprise me is discussions about correct information. My experience with wikis is that users claim that what is posted is false, not supported by sources, that the sources are not reliable, ... but I found extremely rare that things supported by sources are removed so systematically. Melody (talk) 21:56, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

But that's not the case. It's not the claim + source that's the issue, it's the incomplete context surrounding it that is. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:59, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Not to mention the disingenious tactics pointed out by Bongo and GrammarCommie.Summa Atheologica (talk) 22:04, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

@Melody "if @A678 is still interested" <- No, I'm not. After the responses, or, to be precise, non-responses, I got here, I lost any interest in wasting time on that page; and probably in contributing to the website in general.--A678 (talk) 22:16, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

They are not "nonresponses". People might have been aggressive to you but this is overall a matter of disagreement ultimately (probably on two points that are related but not directly such as accuracy and comprehensiveness of documentation versus overall relevancy if I'm correct) and worn patience trying to get points across. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:27, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

@A678 We have an article on the fallacy you are using. Please stop.Summa Atheologica (talk) 23:47, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

So, Tokyo is UT? Oxy was right, then? Tinribmancer (talk) 20:09, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that's so. So, it seems, is A678.Summa Atheologica (talk) 20:11, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Summa Proposal

Ban Tokyo and A678, place Melody under probation.Summa Atheologica (talk) 18:59, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean by probation? Bongolian (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Watch her contribs and see if she begins acting strangely.Summa Atheologica (talk) 20:04, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Seconded. — Oxyaena ^Harass 20:20, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I support this. Melody's edits have been pretty poor. See their CNN article edit and their transphobia on the saloonbar.^{— Unsigned, by: CheeseburgerFace / talk / contribs}

Vote

Pathetic. I said that I lost any interest in wasting time on that page; and probably in contributing to the website in general. Now I can say I surely lost interest in contributing to the website in general. Don't waste time voting for banning me. I would delete my account by myself if there was an option. Fuck you all, end of transmission!--A678 (talk) 21:53, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

“You made me mad so I’m packing up my toys and playing somewhere else! So there!” 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄^{Ask about our holiday specials!} 22:27, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Ban Tokyo and A678

1. Yes. Bongolian (talk) 21:42, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
2. Hammertime! Tinribmancer (talk) 21:54, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
3. To quote EK, "ban all the crazy people as sockpuppets of the crazy person banned earlier."Summa Atheologica (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
4. Ban. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄^{Ask about our holiday specials!} 22:27, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
5. And nothing of value was lost... ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:29, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

No ban

1. For what is matters... Anyway, I say that @Bongolian changed my user rights from sysop to autopatrolled only (19:06, 7 December 2019 despite: 1) I never used my sysop powers, so that's uncalled; 2) At the very top of this page is written "Do not block other users, remove their comments, or remove their user rights. If you think someone's done something wrong, raise a coop case -- don't act unilaterally." Melody (talk) 07:31, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

   You were not an 'established' Sysop, having only been a Sysop for a few days, so I removed your rights as a precaution (RationalWiki:Sysop guide#User rights management). You are welcome to continue editing here. With a modest amount of quality edits, you should be able to regain your Sysop rights. Bongolian (talk) 08:40, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Conclusion

Banhammer Tokyo & A678. Bongolian (talk) 19:07, 10 December 2019 (UTC)