RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation/Archive63

Ledlecreeper27
Ledlecreeper27, who has entered this site today on December 11, is a long-time member of the pro-Communist Party of China and pro-Russia propaganda site ProleWiki (link to account page on that site). This user has clear motives from merely looking at their edits, to promote pro-China/Russia propaganda and to "whitewash" the project they are deeply involved with, ProleWiki. Further, on Ledlecreeper27's userpage on ProleWiki, they openly state their intention to use RationalWiki as a means to advertise ProleWiki to Communist users here. I suggest an indefinite block for this obviously ill-intentioned user; they clearly are not interested in productive actions here and merely wish to propagate their ideological view and advertise, in other words, they are a "concern troll". Wisconcom (talk) 01:36, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Their edits do seem to be hit-or-miss in terms of quality, but it's out of my hands right now, and even if it wasn't, their edits don't seem to be obviously harmful enough to warrant an indefinite block. --Luigifan18 (talk) 02:43, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Just revert bad edits. Tankie users aren't a mod problem until edit-warring gets out of hand. 02:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You raised an ATIM without notifying the subject?!? That isn't okay, man! --Luigifan18 (talk) 02:51, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You're not a mod. You're not even a sysop. Cool it, man.
 * As for Ledlecreeper27, some of their edits are really suspicious and a topic ban could probably be on the table if this continues, and if they're really only here to advertise a website that too is concerning. For now, though, I'd recommend keeping a close eye on them. Plutocow (talk) 02:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I see, thank you. Wisconcom (talk) 03:13, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We neither have a purity test nor a tolerance for whitewashing. Whitewashing will get reverted, such as allegations that 95% of Chinese people support the CCP, or 70% of Russians have a favorable view of Stalin. These are not locations where reliable polling can take place. Bongolian (talk) 03:16, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, suspiciously edited crap is rather quickly reverted here. The mob's tolerance for bad sources and obvious whitewashing is very low. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 03:24, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Now that I consider this more, I may have overreacted with regard to the call for an indefinite block. However, this user still is extremely concerning, particularly when considering their years-long involvement with Tankie/pro-China projects. This user is almost certainly a bad-faith actor, and their trend of promoting propaganda and their website may become a long-term issue here. Wisconcom (talk) 03:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We don't ordinarily ban people on purely ideological grounds or on what they have done off-wiki. (Exceptions can, of course, be made if they have said or done something really horrible.) Anyone coming to this wiki as a spammer to promote another wiki would soon find their efforts severely frustrated. But there is currently nothing on Ledlecreeper27's Prole Wiki page saying that's what he plans to do here. And anyone coming here hoping to find loads of active Marxist users to convert would soon be disappointed to find out that we actually have sod all. Spud (talk) 04:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This largely is not a result of this particularly user's ideological stances, it is due to the fact that they may (and already have to a lesser degree) act upon their ideological stance to promote misinformation. Regarding Ledlecreeper's userpage on ProleWiki, you are correct in the aspect that it does not directly state any actions, but the context and such greatly implies that they intend to propagate their project to Marxist users here. This is not solely just suspicion, however, ProleWiki editors have often used other platforms with sizable groupings of Marxist-Leninists to advertise ProleWiki to them (Such as in this instance when a ProleWiki administrator did this on Wikipedia). I would know because I have been involved with that community until recently, and the higher members there have often revealed to me some more "exposing" information. Regardless, I have been rather overly pugnacious here, but this user should nonetheless be treated with great suspicion. Wisconcom (talk) 05:02, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * —cosmikdebris talk stalk 05:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Recommending strongly to not autopatrol this user (let alone sysop them). Did a random pick through their edits; the overwhelming majority has been reverted and the contents typically amount to tacitly defending CCP stances. Not outright playing coverup for the most part, but adding content in-line with what the CCP wants. YMMV on a ban, not really feeling that one as of yet. Maybe a topic ban of sorts is useful, although I'm unsure of the scope we should apply this to. I'd like to note that the last time we had a spat with other wikis it was the incelwiki, whose chief editor wrote a pretty funny page on us when he finally got the boot. -- Techpriest (talk) 12:46, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "Sod all" award? What's that? --Luigifan18 (talk) 10:35, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The name of the award says it all. It is literally "sod all". Bongolian (talk) 16:26, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I also have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Not that I care that much - but there may be others who may be scratching their heads.  Is it simply meant to be meaningless?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd say yes, especially since the same editor also did this. --Andrew5 (talk) 00:41, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Sod all = new lawns for everyone fuck everything. Sod = sodomize, it’s a British thing I think. King Bowser K. Rool (talk) 04:49, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * True but not in this context "sod all" = nothing. Bongolian (talk) 05:05, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * My theory is that 'sod off' (the origin for 'sod all') is a semi-minced version for lines like 'bugger off' and 'piss off'. Sod off hasn't apparently been found in works before the 1960s, while the other two were spotted in the 19th and 1920s respectively. Therefore, my evidence-light theory is that 'sod' was used in British media (TV, plays etc) in situations where the character would be a bit 'salty' but we had to be careful as we were still in the Whitehouse era of morals. It may be originally from 'sodomy', but it has zero to do with it now - as shown as the line 'Sod's Law' KarmaPolice (talk) 17:38, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I have restricted this user from editing the Wiki page, as it would appear that their chief goal was to "whitewash" the ProleWiki section on that page. This would appear to be the most popular option in the context of this ATM. Wisconcom (talk) 23:45, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

King Bowser K. Rool
Moving this here from BASEMENT, since it's getting off topic. Anyway, King Bowser K. Rool has been under suspicion, as blocking them resulted in no new autoblock, as shown here. Intrigued, I decided to do a little testing. At first, I thought the lack of an autoblock was the result of the short block length. But I tested that, and even a block of less than a minute will result in an autoblock. Then, the other thing that stuck out to me was that on that image, the autoblock of "Queen Mario DK" had a different timestamp than King Bowser K. Rool's block, as usually, when a blocked user shares an IP with a previously blocked user, the autoblock of the previously banned user will move below the newly banned user's block on the blocklist and will share a timestamp with the newly blocked user. So I did another test first by creating an account on an incognito tab, guaranteeing that it would have the same IP as me (since I'm not using a VPN), permablocked it, then blocked my regular account for only thirty seconds. Guess what, no autoblock. I think these test results conclusively prove that King Bowser K. Rool is hiding something for us, and while it may just be something like using the wrong VPN at the wrong time, they should definitely answer for this. Plutocow (talk) 21:36, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This is one of those times where I reaaaally wish RW had checkuser. --Andrew5 (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Checkuser will never happen. Hush thy mouth. Acei9 01:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The facts of the matter are already laid out in BASEMENT. It is unlikely the King Bowser account will edit again, we do not need to take any further action unless it does. I suggest we archive this. Christopher (talk) 21:47, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah the issue seems to be settled. Think we can go back to the usual business for now. 21:56, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * They will most likely return; I've never seen a LANCB that has stuck. That said, if you think we should move on, I won't argue. Plutocow (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah probably, hence, "for now". 22:03, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Should we disable autopatrolled? Might be useful, that way we have a signal when they come back. -- Techpriest (talk) 22:53, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah. 22:55, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good solution in the meantime. Plutocow (talk) 22:59, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * ...Although since they still have sysop rights, there may need to be a vote on sysoprevoke, unless there is a way to remove autopatrolled rights of a sysop. Plutocow (talk) 00:24, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * (ec)...And KBKR self-banned, meaning that if we have to vote on sysoprevoke we'd have to vote on the ban too. do you have a way to disable autopatrolled without messing with sysop rights, since otherwise we'll need a vote or at least a consensus on KBKR? Plutocow (talk) 00:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Just leave things as they are. Someone would notice if he came back whether or not he's autopatrolled. This really isn't difficult. Christopher (talk) 00:29, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * So it's conclusive that KBKR was hiding something but not conclusive that it was malicious. I think it's best to leave the account as is for now. Bongolian (talk) 03:12, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Bob-smith
Given their vendetta against RW and attempts to whitewash the incel page, it's fairly obvious that this person is User:Neiltyson1fan, a permanently banned user. Shall I ban this obvious sock? Plutocow (talk) 23:09, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a bigoted statement to do as Plutocow and others did and write that the websites I co-created (which are the second most trafficked incel websites, and the first most trafficked by organic google search) are defined by hyper-conservatisim and such. They are demonstrably not so and that would hold up in any court of law.  Also, separately, insulting a group of people by the frequency with which they have sex is by definition bigoted.  That page was absolutely fine from 2018-2020.  It was only after Kaurio that the page was ruined. Bob-smith (talk) 23:20, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, that was easy. Plutocow (talk) 23:24, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Lula draft
I would like to request that User Dropix be banned from editing the draft article on now President Lula da Silva, as they clearly have some ideological ax to grind against the man, and refuse to use high quality sources. I say this after suggesting an academic source on one of PT's policy programs and Dropix using a archives of a blog and a forum instead. This person is very clearly not serious about setting the record straight, and should not be entrusted with writing on this topic. 01:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It is only a draft, and I don't see any evidence of edit warring. Bongolian (talk) 01:36, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Since I am myself too biased on this matter, I'll just say a few things. On the other Wiki I've seen people getting blocked for trying to bring their own disputes to ArbCom instead of discussing them on talk pages. Yeah, the blog/forum source was bad, but it's only part of Dropix's work on the page, so I think a topic ban is overkill. Mark them on the talk page, see what they have to say first. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 01:39, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, I've seen quite a few times people using Blogspot and Wordpress as sources on RW. While I agree that two wrongs don't make one right, should we remove all the blog links from our site and topic ban the authors as well? I don't think so. You did the right thing by removing the statements supported by blogs and forums, but I don't think we should escalate this yet. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 01:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Either way this user clearly has an axe to grind against Lula, and this reflects on the quality of their edits. Having a bias in and of itself isn't a disqualifier. (For instance, I'm biased against capitalism but I like to think my edits on the subject are fair.) It's whether or not one lets those biases bleed into their work in a way that degrades the quality of said work. Vee (talk) 02:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not dispute the value of using blogs where better sources do not exist, however, my gripe was that they were used in place of better sources. Again, namely an academic work on the subject. If Dropix required advice on where to find a copy online, I could have helped. My reasoning for mod intervention was that they seem to be prone to both low quality sources and polemics (calling Chavez a dictator rather than a corrupt populist who was elected President within a liberal democratic system, the weird preoccupation with trying to drag Lula for... engaging politically with leftwing politicians in Latin America? What else is PT supposed to do, form a coalition with PSDB? Not exist? Make nice with the US? I'm sorry, be serious. And getting on him for a nickname? Again be serious.) as well as not engaging with existing dissatisfaction with the article on the talkpage. If you feel that these can be remedied with a discussion, feel free to try.  02:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I linked to the book in question on the Draft's talkpage. I am also linking to the post where I linked to said book, here on this thread. 02:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * One thing that is rather concerning is Dropix's complete lack of engagement on the talkpage with these issues. In fact, filtering their contributions, their sole edit to talkpages appears to have been this rather strange edit on the abortion talkpage. They don't even appear to use their own user talkpage where they've been warned before about the nature of their contributions towards the Lula page. it seems they have been requested for comment a couple times on Draft talk:Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and User talk:Dropix. I can find myself in agreement with topic banning this user (even if just from this specific draftpage) if no responses are forthcoming (which their history would suggest). -- Techpriest (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * i would like to add that i myself am biased against lula. however, the article reads more like a non-factual, poorly sourced hit piece than anything else. i don't think "being petty" is part of this site's mission. also, as of writing, three of the five topics on dropix's talk page is about the draft on lula; one of them is an atim notice. in none of them has he responded to comments. i'm undecided on whether i agree with gc's request to ban him (from editing the draft); i just wanted to provide context. The G (talk) 02:59, 5 January 2023 (UTC)