RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation/Archive34

HairlessCat
I've had disputes with on Terence McKenna and Transpersonal psychology. I'm getting the feeling that HairlessCat is consistently whitewashing pages based on those disputes and on these pages: The general gist of this whitewashing seems to be inspired — rightly or wrongly — by Hitchens' quote "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." as it appears on HairlessCat's webpage. So, if there's no citation for something and it differs from HairlessCat's worldview, out it goes even if the rest of the page supports the assertion. Not all HairlessCat's edits are like this, and many of his edits are reasonable. Bongolian (talk) 19:09, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ervin László
 * Occult
 * Spiritual evolution
 * Spirituality
 * Topic ban, maybe? — Oxyaena Harass  19:15, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Have we given them a warning?--Hastur! (talk) 19:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I told him he was whitewashing and edit warring in the recent Transpersonal psychology dispute (Talk:Transpersonal psychology). Bongolian (talk) 19:29, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I motion for a formal warning on edit warring with a mod hat--Hastur! (talk) 19:41, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As others have pointed out, I think we should do a topic ban. Other mods (like ) have already told HC to stop it, and still they did it- and that doesn't help my perception of HC very much. -- Goatspeed. 20:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Give him a modhat warning for wheel-warring. I agree that his edits are bad. 20:17, 24 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I understand the inclination to treat New Age themes as junk science in a kind of business as usual way here on this wiki. I would like to make a simple point about therapy vs scientific psychology: is it really appropriate to treat people with sympathies for religious topics as though they were engaged in white-washing? For example, there must be complex psychological theories of religion to afford effective therapies for religious people. A therapist can not succeed in helping a religious person by telling them, "Everything you believe is bullshit." Ariel31459 (talk) 21:39, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * We're RationalWiki, not PsychWiki. New Age is woo, as it's unfalsifiable and not supported by evidence- whereas evidence-based psychology and science are falsifiable and have evidence to back them up. We don't need woo-pushers demanding some special exemption from our skepticism in the name of "muh religious sentiments". No form of woo should ever be above ridicule. -- Goatspeed. 21:45, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * What (s)he said! Scream!! (talk) 21:53, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly. 21:57, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I quite agree about not meeting the demands of woo-pushers. Let's look at some woo-pushing, shall we? I trust Bongo and all, but just the same, do I have to read all of HC's recent edits to understand the problem? Ariel31459 (talk) 22:34, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * We could at least be a tad bit more fair, and note that something is effective, even if it's bollocks. Nuance exists, you know. — Oxyaena Harass  22:54, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Some of this has to do with the reputation of Psychoanalysis. I have always regarded that as speculative bullshit. Still, the APA publishes articles about the effectiveness of modernized Psychoanalysis. Ariel31459 (talk) 23:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * To be fair, HairlessCat hasn't pushed back after citations have been added. That said, HairlessCat could have acted better in any of three ways: 1) added the 'citation needed' template ( {cn}} ) where appropriate 2) not engaged in partial-page blanking or 3) provided references himself (as he said he would but didn't on the Transpersonal psychology page). Bongolian (talk) 01:05, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I want some response from HC over these edits. HC is in general not that bad of an editor as far as I've seen their edits, so a response from them would be nice to see. Depending on their response to the case as presented here, I may be willing to support anything from a slap on the wrist with the modhat and reminder that deletionism isn't a good idea to a topic ban on these subjects (although I'm heavily inclined towards the former here). As for our stance on New Age woo, it is woo. We do take a solid stance against woo which we shouldn't budge on since it's core to our mission, but that being said keep in mind that there's a difference between calling out woo for what it is and steeping to the degree of unneccessary personal attacks (basically, attack ideas. Only attack people if their pushing is the result of griftery or other unsavory behavior). We're not Richard Dawkins, we can be better than that. 17:17, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I concur with . -- Goatspeed. 19:35, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Did you mean "stooping?" Sirius. Otherwise I could be steeping myself in a hot bath. I sense that the ambition to enact the "mission" sometimes overtakes an editors ability to say why something is supposed to be "woo." Certainly we must agree that "woo is woo," and not go out on a limb in saying so. I like to see evidence that something is woo, and unfalsifiability is clearly insufficient. A large number of theoretical physics ideas are currently unfalsifiable. Time travel? Who knows. Parallel universes? Unfalsifiable. You might be amused by this. A freelance science writer named Marcus Woo wrote an article on what physicists think about detectability of other universes.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:07, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Stooping yes. The problem with new age beliefs isn't that they are unfalsifiable, it's that their beliefs, as is, are functionally pseudoscience. RationalWiki somewhat implicitly (in that our mission implies it) adheres to the Scientific method when it comes to proving whether or not something is science or pseudoscience. As it is, right now, most New Age beliefs are considered to be non-provable using the scinetific method, which is what makes them woo. For them to make sense, they have to be placed in a position where you rely on the assumption that things are true. With the scientific method, we can prove things are true, because the experiments conducted according to the scientific method are considered repeatable. Whilst to some extent we still have to rely on a couple of assumptions (not every joe schmoe is gonna have access to the frozen samples used to prove evolution) that other people aren't lying to us about their results, a lot of the current scientific community is based on checking other people's theories to see if they are correct. New Age beliefs are considered unprovable using the scientific method, hence they are pseudoscience.
 * However, as I stated before, our priority with New Age beliefs (as wel as any kind of pseudoscience) isn't to behave like Richard Dawkins about it. We should focus on debunking the concepts as they are. The people behind those beliefs should be split up into the followers and those that push it. The followers shouldn't be attacked in my perspective, they are using these beliefs to find some sort of inner peace and I feel that attacking those people would be a waste of our time (our goal should be to debunk pseudoscience, not to attack people for sincerely held beliefs). Most also wouldn't meet our notability guidelines, so it's not quite that big of an issue. The people that push it often do so with an ulterior motive (money is a common one), which we should aim to debunk and document. Does this make any degree of sense?
 * tl;dr we should prioritize debunking concepts over people. new age is a woo concept because it does not follow the scientific method. we only attack people if they push this shit with an ulterior motive in mind. 23:47, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm just going to pop in to point out that most new age beliefs (and religious beliefs in general, but I'm trying to be specific) tend not to be philosophically sound either. Something which we have articles illustrating. 00:00, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I hesitate to draw heavy lines here, but if you say "The problem with new age beliefs isn't that they are unfalsifiable, it's that their beliefs, as is, are functionally pseudoscience," you have begged the question, "and what do you mean by pseudoscience?" One editor has claimed unfalsifiability as the main character. I should not suggest anyone here has a merely colloquial understanding of the meaning of pseudoscience. If we do not all agree on the definition some effort to clarify the definition might prove useful to avoid a kind of categorical incoherence. One needs to make a number of epistemological judgements about a collection of ideas to determine whether they serve as some sort of proxy for a science. "Can't be established by scientific methods" is not typical of only pseudoscience. All religions fall into that barrel, and all faulty scientific ideas and constructs as well. The only rigorous test of a pseudoscience has historically been the advent of empirical scientific theories coming to the fore and producing predictable results. This is why philosophers do not generally consider religious schools of thought to be pseudoscience. Not only do they not function  as science does, to make predictions, but there has never been a scientific revolution in the domain of religion, unlike clasical pseudosciences. Phrenology is replaced by theories of personality, alchemy is replaced by chemistry, and so forth. Calling something pseudoscience, because it seems disagreeable by ones standards of skepticism, is as personal as any other ethical judgement one can make. I like the term "unscientific' because it is the most general term for the ideas that truly warrant skepticism.Ariel31459 (talk) 00:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Pseudoscience
Spirituality is not pseudoscience because it has literally nothing to do with science. Yes, I agree with Ariel131459 that unfalsifiability or empiricism are poor standards of deducing something as woo. "Woo" is overused. As for as a woo is concerned, my irrationalism places it somewhere around modern standards. As great as this place is as a little site about how religion and conservatism and conspiracy theories are garbage, I've outgrown this site. HairlessCat (talk) 23:28, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I responded to Ariel with the bigger comment on the pseudoscience matter, but I will say that I am disappointed by your reply. Our core goal should be to adhere to the scientific method, because as it currently stands, what you are asking us is at it's core to just have Faith that spirituality isn't woo, whereas in practice there really isn't any evidence the other way. As for whether or not this warrants a topic ban (personally I'm not quite inclined to do so yet, but a well-construed argument could convince me otherwise), I would prefer some extra input from my fellow mods. If this is also your decision to LANCB from the site, then it is what it is, and I hope you enjoyed your time here. Should you reconsider your beliefs on spirituality, you will always be welcome back (assuming you don't proceed to make a massive ass out of yourself after the time I wrote this comment). 23:53, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't have faith. The philosophical reasoning simply doesn't support empiricism or materialism, and neither does my direct awareness or knowledge, but that is besides the point. I will most likely show up here at special rare moments just to check what's going on since this does have the feel of a nice leftist online community, but a topic ban does not seem necessary as my edits are done. HairlessCat (talk) 01:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Despite our having differences, HairlessCat. I did not have anything against you personally, and I did not propose any punishment at all because I wanted to hear you and the rest of the community out first. I did try to respect your point of view within the limits of the purposes of RationalWiki. If you decide to come back to edit here, you are not required to change your personal views on spirituality to edit here, just to understand and respect what our purposes are. Thank you for your contributions and best wishes. Bongolian (talk) 03:34, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Since HC seems to have suddenly LANCB'd
I don't think we need to enact a topic ban, assuming that HC has actually LANCB'd. And besides, as they seem to not be particularly set in their views on spirituality, there is also the possibility that this person might deconvert from spirituality and become a fully-fledged skeptic- just as (though I know this may sound like an argument from personal experience) I did when I went through a very brief "atheistic spirituality" phase when I left Christianity before becoming a skeptic and realizing that it too was bullshit after applying the same critical thinking to it that I had already applied to religion. -- Goatspeed. 02:06, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that a topic ban is not necessary at this point. Bongolian (talk) 19:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I concur. 20:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I just want to add that LANCBs shouldn't be taken into account for this sort of thing, given how rarely they actually last.--Hastur! (talk) 20:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Good point, Hastur. I think we should wait for a few more days and see if HC actually follows through with his lurking. If he doesn't and continues his woo-pushing/whitewashing, then we may keep this case open and hold a vote for whether we should topic-ban him, and if he does follow through with the LANCB, we archive this. -- Goatspeed. 20:18, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hyper-skepticism leads to the realization of spirituality. You have never been skeptical of your own skepticism. You have never been skeptical of a physical world. Real skepticism leads to the realization that there is nothing in physicality or objectivity. There is only the path. HairlessCat (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Scepticism of scepticism. Yeah I apply my scepticism to scepticism and I find...hey look at that...scepticism is still a valuable tool for weeding out nonsense. So no...my scepticism of scepticism didn't lead me to believing in spiritual nonsense...if anything it helped me from believing in a bunch of spiritual mumbo-jumbo in an intellectual sphere where nobody can point out any method where something can be determined as "wrong" making just about everything potentially "right". I mean...how exactly, Hairless Cat, does scepticism of scepticism lead to a refutation of scepticism as a useful tool of enquiry (not...an actual tool of verifying positive claims?) Shabi  DOO  00:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. Shabi makes an excellent point. Skepticism cannot dispose of the idea that skepticism is useful. When do you stop being skeptical? In my view, one should never stop being skeptical, apart from ones acceptance of a moral foundation, and even that can be tested from time to time with beneficial results.Ariel31459 (talk) 00:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Skepticism of skepticism is just a variant of pseudoskepticism. Bongolian (talk) 00:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Skeptical of your poor manifestation of skepticism which is predicated upon false belief structures and a superstitious belief in a physical world despite Nothingness being primal. You are falling into pseudoskepticism because you are not skeptical of your skepticism as if attacking everything other than what you already have access to is some axiomatic way of figuring things out. As for Circular, his story about him being a spiritual atheist before returning to pure atheism means nothing and is inconsequential the same way a religious fundamentalist converting to atheism and then converting back to fundamentalism proves nothing other than that the reason they became an atheist WAS NOT because they understood what atheism's proper ontological positions and reasonings were and was most likely an atheist because of reasons equally irrational to being a fundamentalist because that is the level their mind is at, otherwise they would have stayed an atheist since the reasoning and knowledge can't go away. You can archive this now. HairlessCat (talk) 00:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that we're being mean to your pet ideas. Lol, no I'm not. 00:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I will be back at Biden's inauguration. HairlessCat (talk) 01:20, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I see Hairless so you are using a weird version postmodernesque relativism to decry scepticism. Tell me then...by what means would you reliably weed out bad ideas? Please explain (and in detail). Shabi DOO  12:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * What Hairless means is that rationalists and self-proclaimed skeptics never critically analyze the fundamental axioms that make up their ideology. For such ardent proponents of critical thinking, I never see so-called critical thinkers critically examine the axioms they use to justify their worldview and general epistemology. Overall, this wiki is a poor resource on matters of philosophy and politics, and is really only good for debunking the alt right and other crackpots. — Oxyaena Harass  14:41, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah I only have two degrees in philosophy taking numerous courses which rigorously studied and questioned the precepts of critical thinking and skepticism. I mean...I don't know what revisiting it would achieve unless someone offers me a reason to question it again. What is a fatal error in scepticism? Please clearly answer this question oxy and be specific with examples (not a case where skepticism was badly applied but a chronic pattern of where skepticism fails us more often than not. What is a more productive method of confirming reliable knowledge? Please be specific and give examples. Please don't ignore these questions like you ignored my last two ones. I think it's great that you challenge people but it is utterly infuriating when you fail to respond to people's questions when they respond. Shabi  DOO  16:25, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

On second thought, since HC's LANCB clearly didn't last (see above)...
It's well over 24 hours, so we may as well hold a vote on the proposed topic-ban- especially since when they came back on the 28th, they continued whitewashing based on their own opinion: -- Goatspeed. 22:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Aye

 * 1) This woo-pusher just cannot be trusted with articles that go against their personal beliefs. -- Goatspeed. 22:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) I've been following their edits for a while and can safely say that this is a good idea. Twodots (talk) 22:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 22:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Bongolian (talk) 01:21, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Spud (talk) 08:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Nay

 * 1) unconvinced this is needed.  22:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The reason why I changed my mind and started the vote is because surprise surprise, HC's LANCB turned out to be just an attempt to get us to let our guard down and archive this case. And I beg to differ; given that HC's a sysop, it is harder to track down and revert his edits; it's better if we just topic-ban him. I feel that he could still make a few constructive edits on other topics, given his opinions on everything other than New Age and skepticism, which is why I'm not proposing any complete blocks/sysrevoking/etc. -- Goatspeed. 22:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) — Oxyaena  Harass  04:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) unnecessary at this point--Hastur! (talk) 07:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Racism on RW
Hey, so in just the past day and a half or so, I've noticed some racist behavior. I don't say this in a crying-about-it way, but to illustrate what I mean: I created a draft on racism and police brutality and it was vandalized with racist statements, and in response to my promoting my draft in the saloon, two different people have started saying some pretty nasty anti-Black stuff. Again, I'm not trying to whine for the sake of whining, but I'm concerned that racism might be a problem here just from what I've seen. Quantumgeek333 (talk) 01:53, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * We get driveby trolls like any site--Hastur! (talk) 01:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That's what I was wondering. I guess it's just a matter of finding the trolls and using the banhammer if they keep trolling? Quantumgeek333 (talk) 02:06, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If they're civil and they stick to talk pages they aren't worth banning. Maybe a vandal binning if they're overly active (spamming 10 new topics in an hour, for example)--Hastur! (talk)  02:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The KKK sucks! Fuck Nazis! Confederates are traitors! Twodots (talk) 02:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sadly we do get racist trolls. I can see CR gave you sysop, so if it persists you can always pagelock your draft for a while. The saloon troll (singular, they just responded to you twice) will probably try our patience a bit too much in the upcoming days and will be required to leave. Sorry you had to deal with that. I do want to point out that BLOCK forbids racism, particularly in articles/drafts, so a short to medium range block for being a disruptive ass shouldn't be considered off the table. The only exception is if the accounts in question somehow have gotten sysop, in which case, a coop case oughta be opened.  11:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Cheer up, . The fact that drive-by, easily bannable racists are getting pissed at what you're writing is a sure sign that you must be doing something right. I consider one becoming a target of such mindless generic trolling on here as a rite of passage. I've had a recurring troll call me a "chink" for trying to make a Hindi translation for this article using what little Hindi I currently know. You're a sysop, so next time you see this person troll you, block them. -- Goatspeed. 17:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia gets the same problem and has since the beginning. Shit, even ‘’Conservapedia’’ gets racist trolls trying to fuck with them. I think trolls adding racist bullshit to wikis using racist usernames (particularly targeting Africans and Jews) is as universal as “poop” and “such and such is homosexual” vandalism. 71.208.x.x (talk) 03:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Such wandals are easily blockable, especially since we have a "permaban and have a tech/mod rename on sight" policy towards people with racist usernames. There's even a running gag among those of us whom the mob currently trust with renaming rights where we rename such foul accounts to "Mr. Poot ________" or (group the username insults here; usually DA JOOZ, DA BLACCZ, DA AYTEEIZTZ, etc.) are the LORD's chosen people and will have their place in Heaven". -- Goatspeed. 03:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 71.208.x.x (talk) 03:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

The 2a0b:f4c2... IPs
Genuinely, I wonder when will you deal with this troll and all his IPs. I do not know who he is nor what he wants, but he should not be allowed there if all he is going to do is vandalize the wiki and, for each ban, evade them by switching to a different IP. 2A02:120B:C3C4:35C0:4439:C987:EC50:8761 (talk) 14:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm the guy behind those accounts, I literally named myself after that IP range (TAOB FACT > 2A0B F4C2), but let me tell you that if you shitbags range ban my ip I can just switch to another range, that's not very complicated. TAOB (talk) 19:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Nice of you to come out of the closet. Made it easier to kickban you on the spot. 19:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Moreover, you should consider making use of checkuser to verify if he hasn't made any account on the website. 2A02:120B:C3C4:35C0:4439:C987:EC50:8761 (talk) 14:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't use or even have checkuser! Scream!! (talk) 14:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * While I strongly disagree with the checkuser part (given that we've been betrayed before by a tech who illegally used it using a backdoor and then gave the IPs he found to a woo-pusher who loves to dox anyone who disagrees with him), I think that perhaps an inconvenience for this IP is in order... we could rangeblock them... -- Goatspeed. 17:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * With all due respect to ... IP data was accessible, observation of this data was used to verify, that certain user accounts shared a certain IP pattern. No backdoor was involved, no information was shared with anyone off-site, nor was offered except for on request by Darryl Smith who did not take up the offer. This was done openly at the time by two techs, of which I was one and Oxyaena was the other, with support of others on Discord. During this time, IP data associated with this range was examined, according to Oxyaena, however, no conclusive matches were located. Therefore, notwithstanding the numerous factual errors in your statement, a checkuser-like operation was carried out already to no affect. Furthermore, this range has been blocked, numerous times and vandalism has not stopped... Judge Dredd (talk) 21:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As has been frequently noted, support (or opposition) on Discord does not have any meaning with regard to support on RW. Bongolian (talk) 21:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's where everything is talked over, planned, coordinated, decided between key users. But absolutely nothing to do with the wiki. Absolutely. Judge Dredd (talk) 21:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with CircularReasoning. Bongolian (talk) 18:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The wiki has a standing rule of not permitting CU for the sake of user privacy. It is correct that we recently closed a backdoor that would allow a poor mans version of CheckUser to exist due to an oversight in how the edit filters were set up, but I can affirm once again that this has been completely closed. The only IP addresses shown to users are those from users who choose to edit anonymously. A few alts of the currently banned user D. Smith were identified using the edit filter way, although the techs responsible have since been removed from the tech role.
 * As for this specific range, it has been a pest for not... too long yet. Furthermore, it would seem that we can specifically target the range needed as a /33 range-block, since they handily nulled all their subnets aside from the one directly identifying them + the last digit. I suspect that they are trolling from some sort of organizations network, since according to the IPv6 range blocks guideline, a /33 is granted to organizations. That is, if we do choose to range ban his stuff, which for now I'm ambivalent about, given the size of the range and the users... largely inconsequential driveby vandalism. 23:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hopefully, I am tired of seeing that chud everywhere. 2605:6400:30:FAEA:0:0:0:1 (talk) 00:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Alright... since it's been well over 24 hours and a rangeblock doesn't seem particularly controversial, shall we hold a vote? -- Goatspeed. 20:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Propose a range and a time period. Bongolian (talk) 20:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Can anyone speak to pi months vs. pi weeks on the range block? Bongolian (talk) 02:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Aye

 * 1) In case the π-month one doesn't succeed -- Goatspeed. 01:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Nay

 * 1) See no reason to range block due to lack of evidence. 13:52, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Goat

 * who? Why is a BoN calling for action against another BoN?--Hastur! (talk)  02:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Are there any recent abusive edits from this range or is this still about the initial evidence. I wasn't talking about for sure range blocking them and unless there's like, evidence from yesterday or so of this range shitting up the bar or something, I don't think a range is needed. 08:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Aye

 * 1) -- Goatspeed. 01:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Nay

 * 1) See no reason to range block yet due to lack of evidence. Also excessive. 13:52, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Ineligible

 * ofc 2A02:120B:C3C4:35C0:3884:9490:CC1:6AB (talk) 11:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you don't meet the voting requirements. 13:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Google Books references
Dumb question, but is it alright to post links to a Google Books excerpt in references? I've just done so, and want to make sure that's cool. Thanks! (I'm super new to wiki-editing, so apologies for the callowness.) baaah Monochroma (talk) 01:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As long as the source is reputable and there isn't an issue with being brought to the dreaded "you have reached the maximum number of pages you can preview for this book" page, I don't see the issue. Quantumgeek333 (talk) 01:19, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with you, this issue plagues Wikipedia. 2605:6400:30:F625:CE99:C4CB:A134:8836 (talk) 21:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ah shit, forgot this was a mod page. Ignore me. Quantumgeek333 (talk) 01:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You don't have to be a mod to give advice on this page. And you gave good advive that shouldn't be ignored. Spud (talk) 08:15, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Anyone can reply to stuff on modpages, including non-mods. This is more the page for "please have a mod look at this". Input from anyone is welcome. 12:54, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Request to have my topic ban rescinded
When I was topic banned, I was stuck in far-right propaganda from Conservapedia and my dad as well as dealing with mental health issues that I was hospitalized for. My mental health has dramatically improved after getting a job and quitting EVE online (I was addicted to it). After 1/6 and my Conservapedia ban, I was shocked back to reality. This has made me see that CP is a toxic shithole (for lack of better terms), and RW isn’t this far-left commie website that everyone told me it was. I believe I have demonstrated clearly that I now intend to contribute constructively and not troll. There are still problems and improvements I can make to the prions page, and I want to make a seprate page for transmissible spongiform encephalopathies. Please consider removing the topic ban. (I have to go for an hour or so, I will reply to question then) Sievert 81 (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * JJPMaster here. I am honestly not sure if I would be willing to support an unban right now, but I do agree that you have greatly matured since your original ban, and I would be willing to support an unban in the near future, but I believe that it is too soon right now, I would prefer to wait at least two months (sort of like Wikipedia's standard offer) and then I will support, but for now, I will have to weakly oppose. JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 14:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * P.S. If a complete unban is declined, I will be willing to request that the ban be reduced to specifically prion diseases, as that is the main area of disruption. JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 19:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Forgive me for holding you to a higher standard than most reformed ex-trolls who ask for ban forgiveness, but what kinds of information do you wish to add? Hopefully not that BS about how microplastics cause spongiform encephalopathy and COVID causes AIDS, which was the main reason for your topic-ban if I remember correctly. Do you still believe that, or did that change along with your other views? -- Goatspeed. 01:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Variably protease sensitive prionopathy is another TSE not covered, and MSA as a (confirmed) infectious prion disease that is not a TSE (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3845125/). There is evidence linking nanoplastics to TSEs and prion diseases, but I understand that there isn't enough to link them yet. COVID=AIDS is a meme stemming from a crank on Reddit who kept insisting that covid is aids and we are all gonna die etc. That was a troll, and I won't do it again. Sievert 81 (talk) 01:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm quite skeptical about your contributions on prions given what your previous edits were. "Is evidence" is not the same as "is convincing evidence" or "scientific consensus". Do you have any actual expertise on prions, or is this something you've read on websites/webshites? Bongolian (talk) 03:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I’ve been reading about them for 2 years, and have a pretty good understanding of them. Sievert 81 (talk) 04:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Why not create your proposed changes in a Draft, and then after someone else reviews to make sure you aren't insane, they add it? Is that acceptable for everyone? CoryUsar (talk) 03:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Or remove the ban, and if I abuse the unban, just topic ban me forever. I’m not interested in trolling anymore. Sievert 81 (talk) 04:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, that sounds reasonable. Twodots (talk) 05:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No fucking way! You weren't allowed to spread your pseudoscirntific bollocks on Wikipedia. You weren't allowed to spread it on Conservapedia. No way will I allow you to shit all over this website now that you're banned from those two. You can either edit pages that have nothing to do with BSE, CJD, Covid-19, AIDS and the like or you can fuck off. Either one is fine by me. Spud (talk) 05:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Spud. Bongolian (talk) 08:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I checked the wording of the topic ban, and it seems to ban him from the articles but it isn't clear if he can bring points up on talk pages. Additionally, would he be allowed to write about the stuff in his userspace or as an essay? I might be in favor of such gradual way of lifting the ban, if he first proves outside of mainspace that he isn't pushing pseudoscience. 08:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The notice I send Sievert would prevent him from editing talkpages in this category as well. Essays aren't forbidden. That said, I am in agreement with Spud and Bongolian that I'm not just gonna agree to lifting it by god's graces so to speak. I recommend Sievert to propose a few edits in the subpages of his userspace (not Draft or Essay, they have different purposes that aren't intended for proposing edits) and ask someone with more expertise on the subject than I (I can't tell fact from fiction on medicine, my brain purely relies on peripheral routing for that, sorry it's just not my expertise, maybe Cory or CR can help here?) if the proposed edits look good and then incorporate them on the article. A few examples of that (lets say 4) would be enough for me to agree to lifting the topic ban. 09:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not happy about the idea of Sievert 81 being allowed to write essays on the topic either. If I see any essays that mention 75,000 cases I will delete them immediately and ban their creator for three months for knowingly spreading lies. Spud (talk) 06:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Vote: Rescind Sievert 81's topic ban from articles relating to biology and medicine, broadly construed
I decided I'd start an official vote for this because there isn't one, it's more just spitballing so far. JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 20:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Yay

 * 1) In light of recent edits he has proposed, I think this user has proven that his woo-pushing days are dead along with his CP trolling days. And I don't know about y'all, but Sievert has actually impressed me quite a bit very recently, now spending his days making good-faith maintenance edits/SB comments and contributing to our CP WIGO- a far cry from the old Sievert. However, I would still watch his edits though, just in case. -- Goatspeed. 03:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) yeah I think this is fine. If he or she starts up with the same shit it’s easy enough to reintroduce the topic ban and make it longer. Acefuck the bozos 03:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Ace put it perfectly. Spud (talk) 03:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) See above. 04:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Per Ace. --RWRW (talk) 07:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 6) My opinion on Sievert has changed drastically over the past few days, and since he is no longer a blatant vandal, I’m gonna support. --JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 12:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 7) Abstain lifted. Sievert did what I asked, he's fine. 12:47, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 8) Sneaking in before closing. 04:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Nay
Too soon. Bongolian (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC) I'm withdrawing my objection based on the recent edits. Bongolian (talk) 03:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Goat

 * I abstain from voting. I want Sievert to propose a few edits before lifting it. Time is not a relevant matter to me in this case, given Sievert seems to have rapidly deconverted from being a CP troll after his topic ban, which I would assume includes his biology and medicine issues that led to the topic ban to begin with. Propose 3 edits in your own userspace (subpages of User:Sievert 81) by linking them on the relevant talkpages, get another editor to review them, and I will vote to lift the topic ban. Until then, I will abstain. 21:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I abstain, per Sirius above. He should discuss the proposed changes either here or on his talkpage first. -- Goatspeed. 22:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , he appears to not be responding to our pings, so I'll both ping and leave a talkback. JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 22:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I forgot to ping, so here, courtesy ping: User:Sievert 81. JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 22:37, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If you guys are worried about prion “misinformation” then why not just allow me to suggest changes on the talk page? I don’t see why I was topic banned from “biology and medicine” anyway if the prions were the only issue? Also, I was at work. Sievert 81 (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As per statement, I voted to lift. 12:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Many proposed edits
User:Sievert 81/Suggested edits to topic banned pages I did what was asked. I was at work when I got all the pings. Is this enough to prove I am acting in good faith? Sievert 81 (talk) 01:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC) (


 * While I saw the attempted pings on that subpage in your userspace, I wasn't notified. This is probably because you're typing it wrong; this is how you ping: -- Goatspeed.  02:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , even though your ping failed, I saw your thing in the recent changes feed, and here is my analysis of the changes I made.
 * 1. Move Prions to Prion: Done.
 * 2. Fix grammatical errors in Prion: Done.
 * 3. Fix factual inaccuracies in Prion: Done. I also added the reference you linked, as well as another one I found in the journal simply called Neurology.
 * 4. Add info about prions to Evolution of new protein folds: Done. I added it to the "Mutating a fold always disrupts function" section. JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 02:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. With the 3 yes votes, I think I will be able to contribute to these topics further. Also, is it still possible to work my way to sysop, or did the previous CP trolling ruin any chance of it? Sievert 81 (talk) 03:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Don’t worry, even idiots (conspiracy theorists, pseudoscientists, alt-righters etc.) are given sysop on RW if they don’t vandalise and have been present for a considerable amount of time. I think you will get sysop in the current week, and so will JJPMaster. 04:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's kind of our thing to demote all editors who are even slightly good-faith. Look at Oxy, Hastur, and JD- arguably the three most disliked RW sysops. And we even demoted HC (see the above ATIM case where I successfully got them topic-banned from New Age and spirituality-related articles for not being able to cope with skepticism), who still has yet to show repentance for their woo-pushing, instead going "bUt mUh DeEpLy hElD bEeLeAfS!" -- Goatspeed. 04:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Can we close this vote?
7 votes for yes, 0 votes for no. I don't think any further voting is needed. Can my topic ban be removed now? Sievert 81 (talk) 04:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think that an uninvolved moderator has to close this, so let's ping . JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 12:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to be an uninvolved moderator as far as I'm aware, though I'm actually involved in this case since I had the initial problems with Sievert that resulted in the topic ban. Bongolian (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , do we just wait one week and then close it then? Or can we close it early because the outcome appears to be obvious? JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 18:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Is a 'remove punishment' vote the same as a 'punishment vote'? That could be open to interpretation of the Community Standards (RationalWiki:Community Standards). I personally have no objection to closing the vote at this point. Bongolian (talk) 18:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , AFAICT, "penalty vote" means "vote to create a penalty", as it says "penalty votes dealing with a user's removal from the site", so I will now close this request as successful, unless someone objects. JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 18:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

So what exactly does RationalWiki consider “doxxing”?
This is a serious question (that I’m sure I wouldn’t be the only person interested in the answer to). So I posted a link to my Conservapedia page, which happened to have a picture of myself with my arm around another RW user, and that is considered doxxing. A (now former) tech does all of this sleuthing in attempt to identify an RW user’s real life identity, posting links to news articles about someone she thinks is that user, and that is not doxxing. I post something on someone’s talk page merely to explain an off-wiki block he was discussing on-wiki, and a third party butts in demanding proof, and when I give further explanation and links to information volunteered elsewhere in attempt to satisfy said third party, I am accused of doxxing. What gives? 2607:FB90:9330:A51D:A85B:5022:A7B3:3049 (talk) 03:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any consensus for what constitutes doxing. My personal bar for that is low: if someone reveals anything about a RW user that was not already revealed by that user, that constitutes doxing. That could included connecting the user to other sites where the username is different, vague personal information that is not already known (like X lives in Chicago), or what have you. If that photo in some way connects to an RW account, then that's doxing. Bongolian (talk) 04:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And leaking an IP that you think is mine counts. Sievert 81 (talk) 04:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This BoN is Morris. He's complaining about me. I recommend blocking and ignoring. — Oxyaena Harass  15:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m pretty sure Bongolian can figure that one out on his own. Your response however raises another question: why are you getting defensive? No one (including myself) is recommending sanctions for your past at this point (we’ve already been there, and you were stripped of certain rights in the coop), I’m just wanting clarification because this is very confusing, especially when requested something be posted and then other users say that it’s doxxing to post what was requested. If I were to recommend sanctions for anybody, it would be CD, but I don’t even see the point in an HCM over that at this point. (Also, I was never actually permabanned per the CS, and it would be counter productive to do so since I now have another account that is making main space contribs and reverting vandalism) 2607:FB90:4280:EFFE:8CA5:DD78:7BED:94DE (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * — Oxyaena Harass  18:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Question:
Does RationalWiki have a courtesy vanishing-style procedure (see also WP:WP:RTV)? JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 13:33, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Not in exactly the same way, no. Users have been renamed after they've left and their passwords have been scrambled. The deletion of any discussions regarding their conduct certainly ain't gonna happen. The thing is, users who aren't banned and genuinely do stop editing usually don't make a big song and dance about leaving. They just quietly fade away. The ones who loudly declare that they are leaving and never coming back (LANCB) usually come back after less than a week. And some of them LANCB and then come back multiple times. Which gets on other users' tits. Spud (talk) 13:48, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It doesn't bother me. You can play a game guessing how long it will take to come back. It's surprising how accurate those guesses can be (and how predictably quickly some people come back). In fact I thought at one point there ought to be a leader board for the users who have LANCBed the most, but then I guess some would see it as a badge of honour which it maybe not ought to be. Shabi  DOO  13:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)