There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff—we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity. |
Fighting pseudoscience isn't free. We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $10, $20 or whatever you can today with ![]() ![]() |
RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Eyeslasho
Eyeslasho | Result: ?[edit]
Delete[edit]
- Per @Pinkerite's comment: "Eyeslasho a very average Xitter racist whose only notability is being retweeted by Elon Musk? If that's the case, I don't understand why they even have a RW entry with all their unnoteworthy, typical racist beliefs splashed all over their page - why not delete the Eyeslasho page and just add a section to the Elon Musk page?". Basically Eyeslasho is a Twitter troll who has changed his account handle about a dozen times. Most recently this includes changing it to @"rational_wiki" to troll this site. The same individual owns many other Twitter and Facebook accounts (he was previously "A New Radical Centrism" on both) and probably uses more than 50 aliases and pseudonyms online. I don't think it was wise for RationalWiki to accept a page on a demented internet troll with so many fake names. The same attention seeking troll has a penchant for impersonations (creating fake accounts impersonating other users) and has repeatedly lied about their own biographical background on Twitter. It seems they also likely created a fake doxx of themselves. This person likes to troll people with fake doxxes and identities. I believe they are the same person who wrote the fake doxx of themself on that Substack. Suffice to say, creating an article on a mentally ill troll was not needed and it has resulted in him creating the @rational_wiki handle and apparently impersonating the RMF elsewhere. It is also possible that Eyeslasho owns the @Griffina account who created their own article. 45.250.252.153 (talk) 16:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
- There are multiple links directly to Twitter than no longer exist and were not archived (#13-16 confirmed, but probably a lot more). I would expect that one of the people that wants this article to remain (@GeeJayK, Antares, and Lavalizard101) would fix this (deleting any otherwise unsubstantiated text that uses these links) if the final vote is to keep. That's the bare minimum to de-crapify this article. The account owner appears to have gone on a deletion spree in preparation for a lawsuit. Bongolian (talk) 23:48, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
- I checked several and they are tweets that were never archived. Since no archives exist, Eyeslasho will likely lie and deny the quotes are real and there is no way to substantiate either way. For example, references 44, 47, 52 are deleted and don't exist on archive.is. Like 40% or more of the article will have to be deleted since no archived copies of many of his tweets exist. It remains unclear why in the first place archived versions were not linked to and only the live URLs. I don't think it's a salvageable article. 62.12.119.243 (talk) 01:41, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
- Bongo convinced me. Antares (talk) 00:53, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
- Lots of unfounded accusations in the article. Maybe we should move away from this kind of drama more generally. Elf (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
- Can you provide one unfounded accusation? Eyeslasho was posting eugenics and pro-natalism but in the past month deleted all those tweets and has tried to reinvent himself. Anarcho-communist (talk) 10:31, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know much about this poster specifically, but a mass deletion of eugenics 2.0./low-level race science crap would have my blessings. The constant trolling on here probably has something to do with these articles, and I see no real reason for this website to cover it in such detail. Is RationalWiki really supposed to be doing the SPLC's job? They have like a billion USD endowment, people. EllyPo (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think it serves us to be giving any oxygen to some troll on the cesspool that is X. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 18:56, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
Non notable internet troll with hardly any independent sourcing. 2001:67C:6EC:203:192:42:116:184 (talk) 21:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)Either we strike out all IPs here or we strike out none of them. KaDaShOvA (talk) 22:44, 2 April 2025 (UTC)- We cannot cover everybody who has ever said something racist on the internet. We can't even cover everybody whose posts have been shared by Elon Musk who's ever said something racist on the internet. Spud (talk) 11:19, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
Keep[edit]
- As everyone knows, I hate Twitter drama, but this person has almost 200k followers, so I think they are notable. Besides, the fact that we pissed him off makes me believe that we did something right by having this article. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 16:37, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
- He has 200k followers he's not some rando asshole. Especially considering he's well versed enough to be pissed at us. Random assholes tend not to get pissed at us. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:06, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
- KaDaShOvA (talk) 18:06, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
- Confusing situation. I'd just keep some minimal version of the article. If there is a legal reason to delete articles on people like i/o, that decision should probably be made elsewhere by the site mods or community. I'll remove my vote if newcomer input isn't welcome, though. Whatever. ☣🍆☣ (talk) 18:12, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
#This Eyeslasho far-right person is actively gaslighting and impersonating RationalWiki and trying to damage this website through X.com and in private emails https://x.com/rational_wiki/status/1907081051383501005. Deleting this article is exactly what he wants and will be a huge win for him 2001:67C:89C:702:1CE:1CE:BABE:2 (talk) 21:41, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
- One of the most influential X/Twitter "hereditarians" (=racists) out there. He also likes to post misleading crme statistics. If he doesn't deserve one of our articles, I don't know who would. On a related note, RationalWiki should really come up with a stringent notability guideline for social media figures. How many subscribers exatly would be a necessary condition for inclusion? Post-Stalinist (talk) 17:03, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
- What metric are you using to claim that Eyeslasho is "one of the most influential" anything? I never heard of him outside of Rational Wiki. And for those who say he can't be a rando because he has a lot of followers - exactly how many followers does a garden-variety anonymous Twitter troll need before they are no longer a rando? And RW already deleted someone who actually matters in the world of hereditarians, Emily Willoughby who is much more influential than this rando weirdo who some people on RW are inexplicably obsessed with. So if Emily Willoughby's article can go, Eyerando can certainly go. Pinkerite (talk) 22:01, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
Merge/redirect[edit]
- Yes, I recommend a section in the Musk article, as Eyeslasho themselves does not seem to be more than a very average pseudonymous X/Twitter troll, made infamous for being retweeted by Elon Musk. A pseudonymous Xitter troll with a big following is not noteworthy other than one more demonstration that Xitter is a shithole where racists gather. And pissing off a racist is not the point of a RW article, even if often a side-effect. Pinkerite (talk) 16:38, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
- It's incredibly frustrating that the persuasive argument here seems to be that the Eyeslasho article is a crap article with bad non-archived links (which is true) rather than there's no point in having an article about an anonymous X/Twitter account. Yes, Eyeslasho is obnoxious and racist - but you can say the same about a million other X/Twitter accounts - are you going to give each of those an article too? Other than people at Rational Wiki, who gives a damn what this rando says? Elon Musk retweeted them TWO YEARS AGO. It was only noteworthy then because some people still needed convincing that Musk is a racist and a Neo-Nazi. Some have argued well Eyeslasho has a lot of followers - but that's likely because Musk retweeted them. It all comes back to Musk. Pinkerite (talk) 15:31, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
- And then there's the fact that the Emily Willoughby article was taken down, although it was a fair-to-good article about a non-anonymous person who has an actual impact on promoting race pseudoscience - and so racism - both for her past attempts to add race pseudoscience claims to Wikipedia articles and for her being a major player currently, in the International Society for Intelligence Research. She's orders of magnitude more significant than a X/Twitter rando, if less obvious about her racism. I really don't understand the priorities of some of you here. Pinkerite (talk) 15:31, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
Goat[edit]
- I am the account owner of Eyeslasho, I use many pseudonym to conceal my identity. I am not filing a lawsuit against anyone, some other troll is trying to stir up trouble over that. I find the article about me funny. The reason I impersonated RationalWiki is because this website is claiming I am a eugenicist. I do not support eugenics, nor am I far right. I am a centrist. I am really not bothered if you delete or keep my article but at least keep it accurate. As for Elon Musk I now no longer support him, this should be obvious from my more recent tweets. Yonalkhas (talk) 00:24, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
- Can you confirm your identity here on X? This place is infested with impersonations while the real Eyeslasho also creates fake accounts. It is hard to tell who is who. 98.98.43.163 (talk) 00:37, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
- Mixed. On the one hand, yeah the fact that a lot of the cited tweets no longer exist even in archived form is kinda problematic and while I'm not a legal expert we probably shouldn't be playing with fire right now. If this is kept, it will need a significant cleanup to avoid any issues. That said, in 2025 you can't argue that Elon Musk-endorsed Twitter bullshit isn't having a significant negative effect in the real world and if this person is actively maneuvering against RationalWiki I don't really want to let them off the hook. Plutocow (talk) 19:34, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
- We're facing six lawsuits (as far as I'm aware). I would normally argue to keep this article, but the fact that we're being hit with a deluge of SLAPP suits + the fact that this article is so shoddily written suggests that we're better off burning this article and perhaps starting from scratch. Either that, or do what Pinkerite suggests. Antares (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
- Linking to to my important discussion ---> here. Eyeslasho is now falsely claiming to be the "new director" of the RMF and is likely also the individual impersonating the RMF on emails. 165.22.12.74 (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
Note to mods[edit]
You should lock this to admins only. A bunch of suspicious new accounts (days or a few weeks old) are randomly showing up to vote. I thought a ban was placed on new accounts voting? 24.144.119.32 (talk) 17:21, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
- The restrictions were for policy votes and elections, not for AFDs. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 17:33, 2 April 2025 (UTC)