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:Chicken coop/Archive139
Johns/Psychologist Guy/Oldman4
A Substack post published on 12 January has recently been posted to the Saloon Bar and spread around the internet. Here it is. It is worth reading despite its long length. In it, the author lays out the case (in more thorough detail than I can do so here) that @Oldman4 (formerly known as Johns and then Psychologist Guy) is the banned user Oliver D. Smith. Smith was banned in this Coop case back in 2020 for disruptive behavior, doxxing, and dragging offsite drama into Rationalwiki. On the Discord we discussed this Substack post and its author's potential shit-stirring motives. Myself, @Christopher, @Carthage, and @ApooftGnegiol find the evidence presented to be both credible and convincing.
Smith has apparently claimed to be responsible for some 140 articles on RationalWiki by writing through various sock accounts, although the Johns account by itself is responsible for about 60. These articles follow a pattern, namely that of continuing Smith's ongoing grudges with various figures involved in the HBD/hereditarianism movement. A particular target is a man called Emil Kirkegaard. These articles, including Jordan Lasker, Diana Fleischman, and Jonatan Pallesen. These articles are generally low-quality, sourced almost entirely from either the subject's social media posts or sources that do not directly mention the subject. Regardless of what the subjects of these articles have done, it's clear that the articles Smith writes on this wiki are intended to further an online feud and are not intended as good faith sources of information.
Smith is also extremely litigious, having filed lawsuits such as this, this, and this in the process of pursuing his internet slap-fights. This makes Smith someone who is dangerous to keep around and also someone who will potentially attract more legal threats to this wiki.
When this wiki's userbase banned Smith in 2020, we agreed that RationalWiki should not allow itself to be dragged into Smith's weird crusade against people he doesn't like. This is exactly what he is doing. As knowledge spreads that Smith has been using RationalWiki as his personal soapbox, it is damaging our credibility and making us look like assholes who don't give a shit that we're being taken advantage of. This banned user is hijacking RationalWiki to fight his little grudges. He is sabotaging this wiki's credibility, quality, and reliability.
I have two proposals, both of which should be voted on. I understand that one will be more controversial than the other.
- Ban User:Oldman4 as a sock of Oliver Smith. Then, actually enforce that ban this time by keeping an eye out for any more attempts to create crappy articles about anyone and everyone Emil Kirkegaard has been in the same room with.
- Mass delete the articles that Oldman4 created. Yeah, I know. It's not a great option. I can already hear the "but we can't let the hereditarianist people off the hook like that!" responses. Well, first off they suck. Secondly, the Substack post and others like it are likely being used to prepare an onslaught of lawsuits against this wiki much like the ones Smith himself has filed against other targets. And unfortunately, I have to report that the Board's plan to move us into a state with better anti-SLAPP laws almost certainly won't come to fruition before those lawsuits start hitting. In order to buy us time, we need to get ahead of this and mass delete those articles. I know a lot of you will say that's giving in to the chilling effect, but like I said, they suck anyway. And frankly, Smith doesn't deserve to have his work remain on this wiki.
This user has taken advantage of us. He has abused our platform. He may have done more damage to RationalWiki than potentially any other user. We have to take action ASAP before this situation turns into an outright crisis. DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW
dictator moderator 04:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with both of your proposed solutions. I don't see any argument to oppose them that is neither idiotic or made in bad faith. You may fire when ready.-Flandres (talk) 05:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I also think that User:Anti-eugenicist is a bit suspicious given the similar editing styles and topic areas, might want to look into that one as well. Plutocow (talk) 05:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was the person who renamed Psychologist Guy to Oldman4, which was requested by email to me. I had assumed that he was acting in good faith, but it was clear at this point he was not. The complete email sent to me was:
- I also think that User:Anti-eugenicist is a bit suspicious given the similar editing styles and topic areas, might want to look into that one as well. Plutocow (talk) 05:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Hi,
I have run into some on and off-wiki harassment recently with the Human Diversity Foundation lunatics. I usually ignore off-wiki drama but these guys have been persistent with their misinformation campaign.
They have been publishing false information on blogs and websites accusing me of being another banned user and speculating on my identity.
It was probably a mistake of mine to connect my Wikipedia account to my RationalWIki one. I have done a lot of historical research on my old "Psychologist Guy" account and I have been involved in helping several animal rights organizations with history research so a name change is important. I have emailed the WMF foundation and they have changed my username over there.
I would appreciate if an admin at RationalWiki could change my username again. I apologize for any inconvience, I won't request another change beyond this.
If you could change my name to:
Oldman4
Thanks,
I have many article creations planned. I have no intention of stopping editing.
- At this point I would support both proposals. I'm assuming the deletions are only for the 60-or-so mainspace articles created by Johns/Psychologist Guy/Oldman4, and any associated redirects to the newly deleted pages. It's clear to me that "Ghost of Lomax" (the Substack link) is supportive of or affiliated with Cancel Watch/Manhattan Institute, but so be it, it's expediency. Bongolian (talk) 06:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment This is a substack hit-piece written by far-right extremists associated with the Human Diversity Foundation and a banned Wikipedia user Jonathan Kane. Their agenda is to get certain users banned by writing misinformation and falsely accusing people of being banned accounts. They have done the same to other users in the past at Wikipedia. The same people running these websites are the same who have attacked the Wikipedia user GeneralRelative, NightHeron and Oliver Smith. The name itself "Ghost of Lomax", is a reference to Abd Lomax, a diagnosed schizophrenic. Abd Lomax was the person who first started promoting this nonsense.
I am not Smith, nor any other banned user. I have never filed a lawsuit. Nobody is suing RationalWiki over articles I created. Most were created years ago and all are very well sourced. 80% of the articles I created on this website are debunking low-carb and carnivore diet and crank diet proponents. Everything I add is well sourced, I never insert my own opinion onto articles. On Wikipedia I have over 300 article creations, I am not a banned user, nor have any involvement with Smith apart from him sending me some emails last year which I disclosed on here. All sorts of people have sent me emails. Prior to a few years ago I had no interest in documenting the activities of far-right activists on this website. This changed when I discovered some of these people' anti-veganism and ideas about crank diets (most are promoting carnivore diet nonsense).
I have been on this website for years, creating very good well sourced articles on diet cranks. It's obvious that Emil Kirkegaard, Jonathan Kane and these far-right extremists want me banned on here and all my articles deleted. That's why they are sending emails behind the scenes. They are tying to do the same on Wikipedia. They have done it before to another user and their attempts failed so now I am being targeted. It is harassment. I have been harassed off-site by these people, that's why I had to close my email.
It's ridiculous if you do this, because they have then won and it will be a great injustice to me. I am not Smith and 2. You would be deleted hours of hard work and valuable material. I think that this could be easily solved if I go on a video call and reveal myself to the foundation or I could meet in person. You will see that I am not Smith. Hopefully we can arrange this then I will receive an apology. Oldman4 (talk) 07:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Bongolian, in the email everything I said was factual and correct. I am a Wikipedia user in good standing order. I made the mistake a few months ago of connecting my Wikipedia account to my RationalWiki one. I was "Psychologist Guy" on Wikipedia. I have been there since 2017. I have since requested name changes recently because these far-right extremists are attacking me off-site and posting misinformation about my account in an attempt to get it banned. As I said I am not Smith and this could easily be solved if I can talk to someone from the Foundation in person or over a video call. Oldman4 (talk) 07:08, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- That would be a sufficient defense in my view if one of our mods or board members agrees to that. Another way might be if you have a public persona that is clearly not Smith, you can change your RationalWiki email address to your public persona email and send an email to one of the moderators via RationalWiki email. This latter method is how Jonathan Kane confirmed to me that he was not an imposter. Bongolian (talk) 07:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- "A Wikipedia user in good standing" is a bit of an exaggeration - as the article points out, users on WP have also raised suspicions they're Smith.
- If they did manage to demonstrate they were someone else through a video call, revealing their email address, etc, I'd just assume it was Smith handing his account over to a friend to help him clear his name. It'd be the only way to make sense of the evidence presented in the article, unless it's all explained some other way. Christopher (talk) 07:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's why I specified "have a public persona that is clearly not Smith". Bongolian (talk) 08:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also worth noting that Wikipedia has checkuser and shit, so might be worth seeing the results of any such investigations on Wikipedia. The fact that this account and the Wikipedia account are connected is not in dispute, so depending on how that goes it could have implications for RW. Plutocow (talk) 08:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's why I specified "have a public persona that is clearly not Smith". Bongolian (talk) 08:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- That would be a sufficient defense in my view if one of our mods or board members agrees to that. Another way might be if you have a public persona that is clearly not Smith, you can change your RationalWiki email address to your public persona email and send an email to one of the moderators via RationalWiki email. This latter method is how Jonathan Kane confirmed to me that he was not an imposter. Bongolian (talk) 07:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
I only skimmed parts of that blog post before but now I've read enough to think Johns and Smith being the same person is more plausible. However that post has some inaccuracies, for example saying a claim was citogenesis on Smith's part, though in actuality if you go to the page where that's claimed it's cited to primary-source comments. After I skimmed the blog post before I also clarified these comments on the page in connection to each other since there was (possible/probable) ideological context behind why they were made. Chillpilled (talk) 07:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- "Users on WP have also raised suspicions they're Smith" - Christopher, this is misinformation from Kirkegaard and his HDF employees and you have fallen for it. I have a very good reputation on Wikipedia unlike Kirkegaard who is banned. I have never been blocked or accused of anything suspcious. Not one user on Wikipedia has ever accused me of being a sock-puppet because I am not one. Two HDF trolls using throwaway IPS accused me of being Smith and were quickly blocked for harassment by an admin. These are the same neo-nazis who have just created this attack blog.
- I am in the top 2500 editors for the list of Wikipedians by article count. I have spent years of my life on the website improving historical articles. I have received barn stars and awards for the historical articles I have created. I am the founder of a WikiProject that documents veg history. It is a blatant attack of me to claim my account is not in good order. This is the IP who accused me of being a sock [6]. You will quickly see that this is a neo-nazi who was defending a far-right extremist associated with HDF Helmuth Nyborg. I have created over 340 articles on Wikipedia. Nobody has ever accused me of foul-play apart from these far-right trolls who are now trying to ruin my life by claiming I am someone I am not in an evil plot to get me banned and my articles deleted. Oldman4 (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, from what I can tell, Kirkegaard isn't a reliable source himself and the first cancel watch thing had some inaccuracies as well. That said, I think we're at the point where Oldman4 or whatever you want to call him needs to confirm his identity to the mods. Plutocow (talk) 07:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- As I wrote in my earlier Saloon Bar comment, I wouldn't vouch for all of the background stuff in the article being accurate, but it includes evidence that Smith is well-practiced creating online alter egos differing in style etc. while leaving some clues. And there's lots of evidence offered pointing to Johns/Psychologist Guy/Oldman4 being Smith. It's not impossible that it's otherwise, and maybe Oldman4 has a pleasant surprise to offer us (and in that case we should apologize). I also consider how the article points to WP "Psychologist Guy" and RW "Psychologist Guy" having somewhat incompatible backstories/claims. Oldman4 claimed that it was a "mistake" to link the two identities, and the article offers a plausible reason for why he may feel so, namely that they were two personas crafted without full regard for consistency (as they were initially not meant to be one) which were too hastily merged, part of causing "the mask to slip".
- I will say now that Oldman4 has done some good regarding exposing other issues, especially regarding "parody accounts" that a different sockmaster was behind. Ironically, if we've been fooled by Smith, then that's apparently why we did take that input into consideration, or a big part of why. Because prior to Johns being accepted and generally well-regarded, various BoNs and "newcomers" did try to warn us about parody accounts, but the community didn't listen -- basically just saying "go away Smith" every time. Fairly recently we've been dealing with that "parodist", which was about time. But here we have another case of something very suspicious. And this further illustrates the general point -- disreputable sources sometimes have good info well-worth considering, and we should consider things that may change the picture, now as when we have before.
- On those articles, if this goes towards banning and deleting. I suppose we should first of all list them before the mass delete vote. Oldman4 may have a point that his articles are not all of the same kind, so it would make sense to roughly sort them depending on what they're about. We could then mass delete all those which are roughly like what Duce mentioned in the opening post for this case, and perhaps keep others, or vote separately on the rest. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 15:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- The problem here is that all the "eugenics 2.0" stuff is something that Rationalwiki should cover; it's pretty directly connected to authoritarian right politics in the US and Europe, and shows up in some of the more notable "pseudo-intellectual" think tanks like with members of the Manhattan Institute (many of whom are pretty well documented racist pricks). It's a shame that we do have some drama llamas creating low-quality articles on this subject (even if relevant, they are often badly biased hit pieces at best, and are bullshit at worst). (Though, to be fair, the "other side" is a bunch of net drama llamas too.) I do not advocate instant mass delete for this reason. A list for quick review and "purge" is fine by my standards; any low-quality article can be tossed. BobJohnson (talk) 17:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree that this sort of thing is exactly what RW is supposed to cover, so I will oppose any mass deletion proposals. I know it will be a bit of a bitch to do [esp if it needs to be done quick], but no we should actually review shit before nuking it. Even if the account did create/edit them in bad faith, if the stuff is 'true and relevant' it doesn't instantly become 'untrue and irrelevant'. If those articles are low quality hitpieces of nonentities, fine - but let us actually check that shit first. Similar can be said about the Substack; Manhattan Institute doesn't like us anyway [if I recall through my mildly pissed brain] so the word 'hitpiece' come to mind; but once again, it doesn't mean what they accuse isn't true.
- The problem here is that all the "eugenics 2.0" stuff is something that Rationalwiki should cover; it's pretty directly connected to authoritarian right politics in the US and Europe, and shows up in some of the more notable "pseudo-intellectual" think tanks like with members of the Manhattan Institute (many of whom are pretty well documented racist pricks). It's a shame that we do have some drama llamas creating low-quality articles on this subject (even if relevant, they are often badly biased hit pieces at best, and are bullshit at worst). (Though, to be fair, the "other side" is a bunch of net drama llamas too.) I do not advocate instant mass delete for this reason. A list for quick review and "purge" is fine by my standards; any low-quality article can be tossed. BobJohnson (talk) 17:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- On those articles, if this goes towards banning and deleting. I suppose we should first of all list them before the mass delete vote. Oldman4 may have a point that his articles are not all of the same kind, so it would make sense to roughly sort them depending on what they're about. We could then mass delete all those which are roughly like what Duce mentioned in the opening post for this case, and perhaps keep others, or vote separately on the rest. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 15:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not going to look at the primary evidence right now because a) I'm already two pints in and b) there's a good chance I wouldn't understand the argument even if stone cold. However, I do have to ask; what the fuck does a person have to do on RW to prove their ID? 'Oh, they might be handing their account to another and getting them to pretend they're the accused' - for fuck sake, this is the point we enter paranoia territory and then hell, nobody's safe [which as pointed out, very well might be one of the end goals]. As for 'potential legal jeopardy'... the 'pissed at us' is rather long and that's just the ones we've actually noticed. If we going to start nuking pages on the possibility they might end up filing suits [nuisance or not] then we might as well scrub any page related to an existing org or living person until we get our arses into an anti-SLAPP state.
- So I say; let the accused prove their non-Smith ID to another mod/board member or two to their satisfaction before we move. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- It would be easy for me to prove I am not the user I am being accused of. All that needs to happen is a meet-up for 5 or 10 minutes in real life, choose the destination in the UK, you only need to look at me to see I am not Smith. I am a veg activist. I have never harassed anybody, I have never filed a lawsuit, I do not believe in violence or threats. The HDF have managed to turn users against me within 24hours of creating their attack website filled with misinformation. Because of the way I have been treated on here, I have no interest in creating anymore articles here. It is frankly disturbing how RW has handled this matter. But it is unfair to ban me or accuse me of being a sock-puppet without meeting me. I am not a returning banned user. If an RW trustee does not want to meet me, then please send a representative or another RW user.
- I am being very fair here, I am not the trouble-maker; I am a victim of these far-right trolls. My Wikipedia account is in very good standing order. I can't be denied that I have spent years on RW creating good articles. I do not want my reputation tarnished because of some far-right trolls trying to cause trouble for me because I created a page about their organization. Like I said just email me and we can arrange the meet-up. There is nothing else I can add here, I am not interested in phone calls or emails ID because there is indeed some odd paranoia here and all that will be said is that they have been faked. Oldman4 (talk) 22:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- So I say; let the accused prove their non-Smith ID to another mod/board member or two to their satisfaction before we move. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Really? You find far-right pseudononymous Substack accounts credible?
It's hard to believe that anybody on Rational Wiki would find a pseudonymous far-right Substack account credible. Especially since "Ghost of Lomax" was launched three days ago (that's what it said before I refreshed my browser) and appears to have been created expressly to attack Oliver Smith. The "Ghost of Lomax" article is primarily a rehash of the City Journal article published in 2023[1] and meant to smear Smith, who is by any standard a private citizen with every right to take legal action to defend himself. The law agreed with Smith and City Journal took the article down. The whole escapade looks to me like an effort by the extremist Emil Kirkegaard - now the proprietor of Human Diversity Foundation, the Pioneer Fund version 2 - to retaliate against Smith because Kirkegaard owes Smith money for a legal judgement. This Ghost of Lomax iteration of the "get Smith" campaign appears to be connected to Christopher Brunet's grudge against the Manhattan Institute [2]. Brunet is also mad at Christopher Rufo.[3] Pinkerite (talk) 15:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Take it as a list of links and screenshots, ignore the text, and the case is still compelling. Christopher (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'd like you to cite an example of what you find compelling. Pinkerite (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- It isn't compelling, it is misinformation from far-right extremists. Come and meet me face to face Christopher. I have requested to meet any RW user or trusteee. Oldman4 (talk) 19:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- The example the blog post gave of both Smith and Johns saying they had created hundreds of pages on RW despite Johns having less than this on the one account. This is what made me say it was more plausible. Being based on out-links to Wikipedia and RW, this can't be claimed to be sourced to the people writing this blog post unless it's suggested they faked your own words somehow. Chillpilled (talk) 22:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Chillpilled, I haven't created 100s of articles; it was a exaggeration of mine where I claimed that. I always thought I had created around 100 but it turned it was less than this. It's not easy to keep track because I do not track them at RW. I have created 100s at Wikipedia, but less than 100 RW articles. The exaggeration is now being quoted by these HDF people like a holy script. It's laughable that this is considered "evidence" or why we are even discussing this in the first place. I have been harassed by these far-right trolls and they are the ones trying to destroy this website, but I am the one on trial apparently. Oldman4 (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's possible, just I couldn't dismiss what they say out of hand anymore. Anyone evaluating it (if they re-post it) should take anything with salt and verify any claim independently through logs or the claimed original sourcing. Chillpilled (talk) 23:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Chillpilled, I haven't created 100s of articles; it was a exaggeration of mine where I claimed that. I always thought I had created around 100 but it turned it was less than this. It's not easy to keep track because I do not track them at RW. I have created 100s at Wikipedia, but less than 100 RW articles. The exaggeration is now being quoted by these HDF people like a holy script. It's laughable that this is considered "evidence" or why we are even discussing this in the first place. I have been harassed by these far-right trolls and they are the ones trying to destroy this website, but I am the one on trial apparently. Oldman4 (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- The example the blog post gave of both Smith and Johns saying they had created hundreds of pages on RW despite Johns having less than this on the one account. This is what made me say it was more plausible. Being based on out-links to Wikipedia and RW, this can't be claimed to be sourced to the people writing this blog post unless it's suggested they faked your own words somehow. Chillpilled (talk) 22:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
My testimonial on behalf of Smith
I first became aware of Oliver Smith when he kindly gave me a heads-up that I was being smeared on Twitter by Razib Khan and Kirkegaard.[4]. My subsequent interactions with him have been cordial and in terms of my Pinkerite project, helpful - he emails me useful information from time to time about those involved in race pseudoscience and the Intellectual Dark Web. I don't know what his actions have been in the past, but from my perspective he is an opponent against a far-right extremist media machine and deserves credit for that. And so I have agreed to share the following, which he requested that I post here:
I am obviously not Johns/Psychologist Guy who has >53,000 edits on Wikipedia since 2017 and different interests. The 'Ghost of Lomax' writer obviously knows this so is preposterously accusing me of having an "alter-ego" or "fake persona". The rest of the article contains an avalanche of false allegations, lies, fabricated screenshots and quotes out of context. I never registered an account on Kiwi Farms in my name and was impersonated there and my posts were tampered with. This is easily provable since in the same thread 'Ghost of Lomax' links to I pointed this out under the real account I posted on[5] so what Lomax is saying I said was not verbatim written by me. Johns/Psychologist Guy can surely confirm his identity by video or in person. Any suggestion I would ask a "friend" to impersonate Psychologist Guy is far-fetched. I have not had anything to do with RationalWiki since I was banned in 2020. Although I dispute the reasons for my ban, it is not something I have wasted time with appealing or discussing anywhere. As for the timing of Lomax's article, it cannot be a coincidence - Emil Kirkegaard is due in court next week for questioning as a debtor before a court officer under oath. If he fails to attend I am applying for a suspended committal order and it's getting closer to an arrest warrant being issued. Kirkegaard knows this so a week before is poisoning the well. - Oliver Smith
Rational Wiki has every right to ban those it finds disruptive to its mission and destructive to its reputation. But for goat's sake, have a little sense when dealing with a gang of right-wing extremists making unsupported allegations! Pinkerite (talk) 15:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is more than suspecting a banned user returned as a sock, or whether pages created are libelous; I've read essentially all of the pages created by Johns/Oldman6, and I did not see any problems at the time that I read them. It's about potential legal jeopardy to RW, which is costly whether there is a basis for it or not, so I think it's reasonable for Oldman4 to identify his real identity to at least one trusted mod or board member as he has offered to do. There is also this, which appeared yesterday about potential legal jeopardy to RW: RationalWiki talk:RationalMedia Foundation#Has RationalMedia Foundation yet moved to an anti-SLAPP state?. Bongolian (talk) 17:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Rational Wiki should do what it can to defend itself, especially with the lawless Trump administration coming into power, with its connections to plutocrats who support the Emil Kirkegaard gang.<ref=hope>[7] Race Science Inc - Hope not Hate</ref>. But this campaign against Smith is almost certainly instigated by or on behalf of Emil Kirkegaard. It's absurd for Rational Wiki editors to accept it as if it were in good faith.
My experiences with Oliver Smith have been positive. If he has not been a good Rational Wiki citizen in the past, I believe he can be, going forward. So unless you are advised otherwise by a lawyer, I think you should give him a second chance - assuming he wants to come back. If he is a bad Wiki citizen after that, you can ban him for eternity. But IMO he deserves a second chance, if for no other reason than for the service he is rendering to civil society by annoying racist-network-kingpin Emil Kirkegaard, simply by trying to collect the money that Kirkegaard owes Smith according to the law. Pinkerite (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Rational Wiki should do what it can to defend itself, especially with the lawless Trump administration coming into power, with its connections to plutocrats who support the Emil Kirkegaard gang.<ref=hope>[7] Race Science Inc - Hope not Hate</ref>. But this campaign against Smith is almost certainly instigated by or on behalf of Emil Kirkegaard. It's absurd for Rational Wiki editors to accept it as if it were in good faith.
- I would just like to point out that Smith is lying when he said that he had never evaded his ban. Here are just some examples (there are many others)[8][9][10]. This, of course, does not prove that Smith is Johns/Oldguy, just that his testimony is clearly unreliable. Also, while I find Johns' proposal reasonable, I also find odd that he changed this block.[11] GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 19:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is the problem to why I requested for this site to use check-user, employ a ban list/log or file sock-puppet investigations but RW users disagree with all three. It's questionable to know who is who as there have been so many impersonations and troll accounts on here. Is it not possible to know who was using those IPs. If you had a checkuser we could at least get some technical evidence. As far as I know Smith admitted to using accounts up to towards the end of 2020. He denies any beyond this date. Kirkegaard has had many accounts here. You ask about why I renamed that account, I was sent evidence that Kirkegaard probably owns that account but there is no hard proof either way. Oldman4 (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would just like to point out that Smith is lying when he said that he had never evaded his ban. Here are just some examples (there are many others)[8][9][10]. This, of course, does not prove that Smith is Johns/Oldguy, just that his testimony is clearly unreliable. Also, while I find Johns' proposal reasonable, I also find odd that he changed this block.[11] GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 19:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Kirkegaard owns which account? This is getting much too confusing for me. The moment you find yourself moving onto such a weird, recursive plane, your defence gets much less persuasive. Let's just focus on verifying your identity and reverting any obvious sock puppets that have edited either the Kirkegaard or Karlin article. This is what counts now. KaDaShOvA (talk) 23:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- A bit of a red herring, I know, but Smith unironically believes that Atlantis is a real place.[12] This sort of crankery is pretty much what don't need here. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 23:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- (ec)Relevant ATIM cases for the Emil Kirkegaard drama: 1, 2, 3 (probably the one most relevant to the case at hand), and 4. To my knowledge Smith has denied being Boar (although he's not a reliable source) and a BoN 122.10.138.235 (talk · contribs · block · rights · rename) (which is a VPN from Malaysia) has raised an argument in one of the cases that the Boar account is connected to Kirkegaard (as well as Rome Viharo, who is his own can of worms). Take all of that how you will. Plutocow (talk) 23:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ok, I still don't fully get it. But this recent xeet is probably related.[13] KaDaShOvA (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Kirkegaard is full of shit, that was just used as a piece of evidence to link CBH (who shared a doxxing document that Kirkegaard is known to have edited) to Kirkegaard well after the account was already banned. We aren't here to relitigate those accounts; the only point of interest there is whether Boar truly belongs to Smith or not. Plutocow (talk) 00:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ok, I still don't fully get it. But this recent xeet is probably related.[13] KaDaShOvA (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Kirkegaard owns which account? This is getting much too confusing for me. The moment you find yourself moving onto such a weird, recursive plane, your defence gets much less persuasive. Let's just focus on verifying your identity and reverting any obvious sock puppets that have edited either the Kirkegaard or Karlin article. This is what counts now. KaDaShOvA (talk) 23:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Oliver D. Smith tried to find dirt about me online and couldn't. He then essentially accused me of being a Mikemikev sock. He's a fucking arsehole wanker. Spud (talk) 14:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Meet up
- I have been mistreated and RW has not handled this professionally, all of this should have been kept private, you should have just emailed me privately and we could have met up to confirm I am not this other user. The far-right Human Diversity Foundation who are operating this "Lomax" blog and promoting these conspiracies are heavily watching all this. Their Lomax blog has been registered for two years, meaning they will keep updating their webpage and obsessing over this until they have won. Their agenda is to get articles deleted and my account banned. It odd why the filer of this coop case is giving into these far-right extremists, that is exactly what they want, to cause chaos and division here.
- My offer is on the table, an RW spokeperson or trustee just meet me privately for a few minutes for a quick chat and then you will see I am not the same person I am being accused of. Also when I meet this RW spokeperson or trustee they can phone Smith. Please make contact with Smith. I can prove I am not the same person by meeting anyone. It's ridiculous why I have to do this but I am willing to. Just drop me an email. However, I have another offer because the HDF and (Jonathan Kane/Karlin/Kirkegaard) etc and all these other far-right lunatics are so obsessed with me, accusing me of being someone I am not and spreading misinformation about my account. Please also email me and we can also privately meet up. I am a pacifist and vegan activist (things will not get violent). I am tired of this misinformation about my account. There is nothing else to publicly discuss here. Oldman4 (talk) 19:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- My problem is that Smith is a lawyer hound, and I don't want to be in a direct personal meeting with Smith or anyone connected to him because of that.
DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW
dictatormoderator 20:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)- I don't think he's unduly litigious. Why do you think he is? And the debt that Emil Kirkegaard owes him, the thing that is likely driving his campaign against Smith, is because Kirkegaard sued Smith and lost. Pinkerite (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- The thing with the meet up in person thing is that it's a pretty tall ask. To my knowledge, KarmaPolice is the only relevant user who lives in the U.K., and even assuming he'd be able to travel to the specified location with no cost or scheduling issues I'd be wary about meeting a stranger online. You sure we can't do a video call or something more practical? Plutocow (talk) 23:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm probably not relevant but I live in the UK, can't really travel easily though... Lavalizard101 (talk) 23:31, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have near-zero idea what the hell all this is about - I think I'd be pretty easy to trick. More importantly, between work and the kitchen renovation I'm doing right now I have little time/energy for gallivanting by the shiteness which is the British railway system. If we know what this Smith character looks like, a quick video call should be sufficient. Now it's possible they could 'find someone else' to masquerade as them but there comes a point you need to give some benefit of doubt. KarmaPolice (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Long-time editor @David Gerard (also in UK) might be a possibility, though he is fairly inactive here due to other commitments. He is quite pubic about his real-life contact information as can be seen on his homepage here (User:David Gerard). He has WhatsApp and Signal o the phone according to his other home page.[14] Bongolian (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would meet David Gerard if he was up for it. If nobody wants to meet then it would have to be a videocall. I don't have discord, I guess I would have to create an account on there and download it. It seems most users here are on there so I can do it through there. Oldman4 (talk) 06:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Don't take this the wrong way, but one of the bloggers that popularised the anti-Smith blogpost by retweeting it,[15] "Tracing Woodgrains", also wrote a widely known Substack article (almost 300 comments) about his WP activity.[16] We can obviously trust David's judgement, but relying on him might make lawsuits even more likely. KaDaShOvA (talk) 11:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would meet David Gerard if he was up for it. If nobody wants to meet then it would have to be a videocall. I don't have discord, I guess I would have to create an account on there and download it. It seems most users here are on there so I can do it through there. Oldman4 (talk) 06:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Long-time editor @David Gerard (also in UK) might be a possibility, though he is fairly inactive here due to other commitments. He is quite pubic about his real-life contact information as can be seen on his homepage here (User:David Gerard). He has WhatsApp and Signal o the phone according to his other home page.[14] Bongolian (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have near-zero idea what the hell all this is about - I think I'd be pretty easy to trick. More importantly, between work and the kitchen renovation I'm doing right now I have little time/energy for gallivanting by the shiteness which is the British railway system. If we know what this Smith character looks like, a quick video call should be sufficient. Now it's possible they could 'find someone else' to masquerade as them but there comes a point you need to give some benefit of doubt. KarmaPolice (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm probably not relevant but I live in the UK, can't really travel easily though... Lavalizard101 (talk) 23:31, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- The thing with the meet up in person thing is that it's a pretty tall ask. To my knowledge, KarmaPolice is the only relevant user who lives in the U.K., and even assuming he'd be able to travel to the specified location with no cost or scheduling issues I'd be wary about meeting a stranger online. You sure we can't do a video call or something more practical? Plutocow (talk) 23:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think he's unduly litigious. Why do you think he is? And the debt that Emil Kirkegaard owes him, the thing that is likely driving his campaign against Smith, is because Kirkegaard sued Smith and lost. Pinkerite (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- My problem is that Smith is a lawyer hound, and I don't want to be in a direct personal meeting with Smith or anyone connected to him because of that.
Alright, if no one else wants to, I can do an online meet up. Oldman4 can choose the platform. I'm a former mod and a former trustee, so I believe that the community knows that I want the best for RW. Besides, I'm neither an American nor a British citizen, so Smith will have a hard time suing me. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 11:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- @GeeJayK Since there's been some concern, mainly from Christopher, about Smith possibly getting a friend or relative to stand in for him (if Oldman4 is in fact Smith), I think there's a simple way around that issue. In order to make sure that it's really Oldman4 you're talking to, when you meet with him I suggest that you ask him a few questions about his activity here and/or at Wikipedia. Nothing that's too difficult to answer, but they should be questions that aren't revealed in advance, so that Smith wouldn't be able to coach a friend or relative about the answers ahead of time. Do you think that's a reasonable idea? Tetrapteryx (talk) 12:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sounds like a plan... KarmaPolice (talk) 12:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Blog post deleted
The "Ghost of Lomax" webpage created by these far-right Human Diversity Foundation extremists has just been deleted [17], most likely for abuse or violating terms of service. This is what I mean, nothing they are doing is ethical and its sad how RW have responded to their nonsense here. You could have avoided all of this unnecessary drama which they feed off. I suspect that the owners are currently going to just re-post the article in an altered form and then cry about censorship. It's obvious they will not give up on their harassment campaign but this is a sign that their activities are clearly not ethical. Oldman4 (talk) 21:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Good - so anybody can still see how outrageous this article is. The article is a two-fer for the neo-Nazi kakistocracy led by Emil Kirkegaard - embarrass Manhattan Institute by accusing them of caving in to pressure by retracting the article, and continue the pressure against Smith for daring to attempt to recover court-ordered money from Kirkegaard. I can't believe some Rational Wiki editors were so gullible as to fall for a hit job that was already revealed as a bunch of bullshit over a year ago. Pinkerite (talk) 13:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- so looking through that substack, and following links, the take away i get from it is they blame oliver smith for every professional setback of a few targets of rw articles, but when you look at what actually happened rw had very litle to do with anyones sacking, and oliver smith himself probably didnt either. noah carl was fully investigated before being denied a post, bo winegard had some heat due to the rw article but came undone from tweeting stuff, willoughby was involved in twitter spat where no one mentions rw at all but we had an article for at the time the so it was us. the substack conclusion is that smith is oldman because hes editted/created articles on the same people as smith. that not proof at all. the other thing that struck me was the bitching about us having rw articles on particular people. googling these people seem to suggest to me they are for the most part not inaccurate and we are blamed because are not positive about them and this smith fella had a hand in some of em. i can only suggest persuse the articles in qwuestion to doublecheck they arnt libelous ande work out some standardised procedure for when verifying someones identity like this might be required again. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Good - so anybody can still see how outrageous this article is. The article is a two-fer for the neo-Nazi kakistocracy led by Emil Kirkegaard - embarrass Manhattan Institute by accusing them of caving in to pressure by retracting the article, and continue the pressure against Smith for daring to attempt to recover court-ordered money from Kirkegaard. I can't believe some Rational Wiki editors were so gullible as to fall for a hit job that was already revealed as a bunch of bullshit over a year ago. Pinkerite (talk) 13:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes - the claims are bonkers, and not even the Manhattan Institute/City Journal would stand by the article. Although that begs the question - how did a legally-actionable bullshit-filled hit piece on a private citizen get past the City Journal editors in the first place? Because the only people who stand to directly gain by continuing to attack Oliver Smith are Emil Kirkegaard for his legal woes and Christopher Brunet, using the article for his campaign against the Manhattan Institute. Pinkerite (talk) 16:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- EC. and quite frankly, this is not really a question of identity. its a question of if our articles are properly sourced and are not libelling anyone. thats on all of us. there is no easy solution just a little bit more vigilance here and there. user name you dont recognise suddenly very active? have little looksy. adding cats to new article? take a butchers at sources. some articles are always going to be someones watchlist so less of an issue, but there are plenty of niche topics, obscure figures, stuff that no one looks at or knows too much about. point is, we gonna miss stuff. the odd random edit thats false, sources that are dogshit, stuff that might get us sued even. we catch what we can and if we miss something pretty egregious then i would hope affected parties would request its removal before suing, and we can act accordingly. we dont really have the numbers to do much more AMassiveGay (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- as far as all the lawsuits discussed on that substack, im in no position to comment on their validity. they might have a case, they might be dogshit. let the courts decide, if they havent already. its not really pertinent to the identity of oldman. all we can say from the substack is they think every one is smith, and smith is behind everything that goes against them, and evidence presented for rw's role is lacking. and the question of is smith/oldman the same person resolved or not it only really effects the issue of ban evasions. their edits should stand on their own merits AMassiveGay (talk) 16:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- The problem I have with a lot of our HBD articles though is that they really aren't that great, and seem to be edited by a "team" of suspicious accounts that only are laser focused on "eugenics 2.0" topics. I don't dispute that RW is a good place for eugenics 2.0 topics, but I question a few things I've seen within them:
- A) The notability of some of the folks. Do we really need articles on any rando who attends a eugenics 2.0 conference or writes an article / paper for them? In many cases, covering the institution I think would suffice. Like, coverage of Human Diversity Foundation and Mankind Quarterly is perfectly acceptable. But someone like Curtis S. Dunkel? A couple of papers and a little association with Kirkegaard? Whoop-de-shit. This is basically similar to the "Youtuber problem" this Wiki had earlier, we don't want to cover every rando Youtube crank, we don't want to cover every rando HBD crank either.
- B) "Overfitting" issues. I noticed this with the deleted Emily Willoughby article regarding the International Society for Intelligence Research. I personally am more on the Stephen Jay Gould side of IQ etc., but this is still a legitimate science organization (that nonetheless is controversial due to some eugenicists being involved and the whole topic of IQ being controversial in itself). So you can't just say "so and so attended a ISIR conference and ooh he or she is racist" without further qualification.
- C) Sourcing. Let's take the Richard Haier article. I'll give an example, starting with the header: "a supportive colleague of Bo Winegard". What's the evidence? A fucking tweet saying that Haier enjoyed a conversation with Winegard. That's a bullshit source and the reasoning doesn't follow. Now, it was pretty easy to find an actual source where Haier supported Winegaard in regards to not being fired for his viewpoints. Which isn't even the same thing, but closer to the mark. I think Haier is perfectly appropriate for this wiki, but mainly because of him being a strong proponent of the "g-factor" thing (which remember, still is somewhat in the mainstream science, my Stephen Jay Gould-esque stance notwithstanding) and The Bell Curve (which is, er, less so). The current article, as I see it, has too many dependencies on random social media and poor inferences. It could use a big cleanup. You can say that about a *lot* of this Wiki, of course, but the "laser focus" of a bunch of "suspicious socks" and the sheer volume of HBD articles makes for an "interesting conundrum" on this topic. BobJohnson (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- as far as all the lawsuits discussed on that substack, im in no position to comment on their validity. they might have a case, they might be dogshit. let the courts decide, if they havent already. its not really pertinent to the identity of oldman. all we can say from the substack is they think every one is smith, and smith is behind everything that goes against them, and evidence presented for rw's role is lacking. and the question of is smith/oldman the same person resolved or not it only really effects the issue of ban evasions. their edits should stand on their own merits AMassiveGay (talk) 16:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- RE: My Richard Haier article - The Bo Winegard reference is extremely important because Winegard is a player in Kirkegaard's HDF organization. And the fact that it was given a bronze brain means some people thought it was good enough. But of course, all articles could be made better. And since virtually anybody can edit these articles, why haven't you gotten in there and made changes, instead of trashing it here? Pinkerite (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- And nobody has been called out for simply participating in ISIR conferences. I'm aware that ISIR conferences include plenty of normal science people - often students - who have no idea of ISIR's funding sources or history of platforming extreme racists like Kirkegaard or mainstream "hereditarians" like Pinker. What an utter bullshit criticism. Pinkerite (talk) 20:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Finally, your critique: "Now, it was pretty easy to find an actual source" Yes it was easy to find which is why it can already be found in the sources list of the article. Did you bother to look? Pinkerite (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- And nobody has been called out for simply participating in ISIR conferences. I'm aware that ISIR conferences include plenty of normal science people - often students - who have no idea of ISIR's funding sources or history of platforming extreme racists like Kirkegaard or mainstream "hereditarians" like Pinker. What an utter bullshit criticism. Pinkerite (talk) 20:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- RE: My Richard Haier article - The Bo Winegard reference is extremely important because Winegard is a player in Kirkegaard's HDF organization. And the fact that it was given a bronze brain means some people thought it was good enough. But of course, all articles could be made better. And since virtually anybody can edit these articles, why haven't you gotten in there and made changes, instead of trashing it here? Pinkerite (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Both are living people, so any claim *must* be backed up. Bullshit claims are *libelous*. "Winegard is a player in Kirkegaard's HDF organization" -- [citation needed]. I cannot find this with a Google search, so I need proof. (What organization are you talking about anyways? OpenPsych? Nada on Google.) This is the sort of shit that leads to trouble if it is not accurate. As well as being a dishonest smear. There is absolutely enough one can say about Richard Haier's Jensenism / Murray support without stretching truth. Perhaps your assertion may be right, but we've already nuked an article that was completely out of scope. I have a feeling that there are plenty more.
- Wow you are ignorant on this topic, so naturally you come on here to trash my Haier article. I've already included the source for the Winegard assertion on this very page. Your inability to find things if you have to put in more effort than a 2-second Google search is not my problem. JFC. Here it is again - last time I am spoon-feeding you. Race Science Inc. by Hope Note Hate.Pinkerite (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Apologies for misreading the claim. The connection to Richard Haier is the question. Winegard and Kirkegaard definitely are connected.
- Now: I don't frankly care how much anger and spit you have. The question you should ask yourself: does an article pass the "libel" test? It's not "matter of opinion", it's "can this article hold up in a court of law"? If you or the rest of the current "anti-eugenics mob" don't give a fuck about that, well, that's your problem if the rest of the "RW mob" decides that some HBD articles are too inaccurate for the Wiki, or are a hit piece, etc. Rationalwiki has a living person template for a reason. I am not alone with concerns about "too much social media" and other points in these articles. So it's not just a "me" problem here.
- I have been running Pinkerite, which critiques race pseudoscience, for over six years now without being sued, although those I have critiqued have admitted publicly to reading it, including Kirkegaard, Razib Khan and Jesse Singal. If I crossed the line into any sort of defamation, I'm sure I would have heard about it. And opinions are covered by the First Amendment. I didn't say "Bo Winegard and Richard Haier are lovers." That would be a claim of fact. I said that Richard Haier is a "supportive colleague" of Bo Winegard. Who decides the exact parameters of "supportive colleague?" Now I'm fine with removing that line, but the fact remains that it is a reasonable opinion of the relationship between Haier and Winegard as the evidence I provided establishes.
- Wow you are ignorant on this topic, so naturally you come on here to trash my Haier article. I've already included the source for the Winegard assertion on this very page. Your inability to find things if you have to put in more effort than a 2-second Google search is not my problem. JFC. Here it is again - last time I am spoon-feeding you. Race Science Inc. by Hope Note Hate.Pinkerite (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- You can call me all the names you want, but all it does is reinforce my impression (reinforced by the whole Willoughby drama shit) that you and several other accounts are too disruptive for this Wiki's own good. For this reason as well, I will state the above once more and be done. It's not just my opinion that counts here, so there is no need to go any further. Other than: it's a pity there are so many drama trolls on the eugenics 2.0 topic, because it falls within RW's remit. BobJohnson (talk) 23:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Lucky for you that opinions are not actionable because your unsupported claim that my account is "disruptive" is absolute garbage. And I don't know what you're talking about "the whole Willougby drama." I chimed in during the discussion that I thought the article should stay. And that's all. How the hell is that disruptive? I've done solid contributions to Rational Wiki, as evidenced by the bronze and silver brains my articles have been awarded, and this is the first time I've exchanged such harsh words on RW with anybody - because you are attacking my work with absolute nonsense claims. I certainly don't need RW to write about race pseudoscience - I think in the overall balance of things, I've been more beneficial to RW than vice-versa. And frankly, there's something very squirrelly about your insistence that there's something especially wrong with the HBD articles on RW. If you are the primary representative of Rational Wiki now then I do not trust Rational Wiki. Which of course is the goal of Emil Kirkegaard and friends. Bravo. Pinkerite (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I bothered to read the source. And it did not say "a supportive colleague of Bo Winegard", it said that he did not support Winegard being fired. Not the same thing. And it was not directly next to the original claim in the first place. Any statement should have a citation next to it. Especially with someone living.
- I included the tweet and a quote from the article on Marietta college. Two pieces of evidence is plenty to establish that Haier is a supportive colleague of Bo Winegard. On top of appearing on the Winegard-connected - and now run - Aporia. Whether that meets your standards for "supportive colleague" is a matter of opinion - but if you're going to start policing Rational Wiki for opinions in articles good luck with that. Wikipedia already exists for "neutral" articles. Pinkerite (talk) 22:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- The reason I have not edited anything is that I haven't looked really hard into these articles until just now, and we haven't decided whether or not to overhaul HBD articles or delete or whatever. Overly defensive responses like this (with perhaps some questionable claims) make me frankly want to aim more for the "delete" button; editing an article takes a heck of a lot of time, and even more so if you have to spend 90% of the time investigating all the links and determining whether every claim in the article is bullshit or not. If our "anti-eugenics 2.0 mob" has no fucking concept of "citations", "accuracy", or "legal liability", fuck their bullshit straight up. I think the Haier article has a fair bit of some salvageable stuff, so not the best example in some ways. But some probably have zilch. BobJohnson (talk) 22:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Somebody looked at the Haier article hard enough to give it a fucking bronze brain award. So apparently Rational Wiki is not dependent only on your opinions. Maybe you should go complain to those responsible for the award. And there's nothing "overly defensive" in standing up for my own work against your bullshit attacks - including your implication that I'm a moron who willy-nilly defames people or claims that anybody who shows up at an ISIR conference is therefore a racist. The Haier article is rock solid - it could maybe use some tweaks - and others have already been doing that all along. Pinkerite (talk) 22:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think the claim "just had a conversation with Winegard" is kind of underplaying the situation here. Haier appeared directly on Winegard's podcast (availabe here). That's platforming. Not merely a "conversation". Carthage (talk) 22:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
@BobJohnson, I agree with your points on such articles in general. I think it deserves further discussion, as an issue in itself, regardless of the outcome of this coop case. There's been more discussion on Discord which has branched out into somewhat similar questions of notability and over-focus on social media in articles. It seems a significant portion of members have thoughts along such lines, so a discussion on maybe setting some kind of new standard is worth having and proposals could perhaps get traction.
Good articles add to covering the range of ideas and issues relevant to our mission, while -- thinking of articles at their worst -- articles that just say "This person is X, Y and Z because this person has argued horribly on the Internet, look at this social media content" don't cover anything unique and provide nothing beyond pointing to that person being bad. I'd say articles that are purely that are only ever missional if the person is truly famous or really influential (even then hopefully there's more to say). In 2021 some bad articles were deleted (nominated by a user later banned after trying too hard to get every Smith article deleted, which Smith apparently wanted back then) and another user referred to these articles in an AfD as "Encyclopedia Dramatica lite", which seems apt.
Basically, apart from it being better to source things to and center focus elsewhere than social media if it's available, if social media is the main thing about a person, then consider some kind of notability cut-offs (like for YouTubers). --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 18:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- At this point, I am leaning against the initial proposal, but I still have concern about potential legal jeopardy. One possibility is to make a list of all HBD articles on individuals that were created by Johns, then as a group, we can read through them and sign off on them if they look OK, or edit them and sign off, or suggest individual articles for deletion based on poor quality or lack of notability. It's time consuming, but it might allay everyone's concerns. Frankly, the idea that Smith would come here to do a lot of edits on vegetarianism, then switch to HBD does seem farfetched to me. Bongolian (talk) 21:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- The statement above that "Bullshit claims are *libelous*." for living people is not entirely correct. Libel requires defamation,[phttps://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/libel] and defamation requires injury to reputation.[19] Making vague (e.g., callings someone rotten) but bullshit claims about someone is usually not libel. More specific statements that are bullshit but not injurious to reputation are also not libel. Bongolian (talk) 22:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I will point out here that RW is bound by American libel standards, not English [which is stricter]. 12:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Looks like someone bringing the same concerns to wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Anglo_Pyramidologist Phantasmagoria (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Has anybody actually explained the evidence for the connection to Wikipedia's checkusers? If not, that IP user was being ridiculously naive by thinking a bunch of links with no commentary would be a sufficient explanation. Tetrapteryx (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, the "case" was retracted rather quickly. Plutocow (talk) 23:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just a note, Jonathan Kane (Tetrapteryx) is indef blocked on Wikipedia. This was the same user who used many sock-puppet IPS on Wikipedia to harass the user NightHeron and others to promote an absurd conspiracy theory that user is a shared account. Tetrapteryx has a massive conflict of interest in all of this, because he was involved in writing these attack blogs but its good he is here because he is exactly the sort of person who I should meet on cam. I have only just signed up to discord; but I will be active there in the next 24 hours. I have requested to meet a trustee IRL to confirm I am not a banned user but nobody took the offer. I have also emailed several users here and they have refused to go on camera to talk to me. Jonathan Kane is the one promoting these conspiracies about me and others, so I think it is only fair we should talk on cam about this. I think this coop case has gone on for too long. Let's solve this in the next 24 or so depending on time zones. At this point I am willing to talk to anyone on the RW discord. I am not looking for any arguments or a huge debate. You can just see very quickly that I am not the user I am being accused of. Oldman4 (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- It’s probably some bon who lurks here and wants to instigate drama as suggested from their off topic edits later. Phantasmagoria (talk) 00:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just a note, Jonathan Kane (Tetrapteryx) is indef blocked on Wikipedia. This was the same user who used many sock-puppet IPS on Wikipedia to harass the user NightHeron and others to promote an absurd conspiracy theory that user is a shared account. Tetrapteryx has a massive conflict of interest in all of this, because he was involved in writing these attack blogs but its good he is here because he is exactly the sort of person who I should meet on cam. I have only just signed up to discord; but I will be active there in the next 24 hours. I have requested to meet a trustee IRL to confirm I am not a banned user but nobody took the offer. I have also emailed several users here and they have refused to go on camera to talk to me. Jonathan Kane is the one promoting these conspiracies about me and others, so I think it is only fair we should talk on cam about this. I think this coop case has gone on for too long. Let's solve this in the next 24 or so depending on time zones. At this point I am willing to talk to anyone on the RW discord. I am not looking for any arguments or a huge debate. You can just see very quickly that I am not the user I am being accused of. Oldman4 (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, the "case" was retracted rather quickly. Plutocow (talk) 23:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) GeeJayK offered to have a video chat with you earlier; I saw your Discord message, you have an opening to talk to him about setting up a video meeting between you there. I think that's a good idea BTW if you're both fine with it. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Oldman4, see this about a possible problem receiving email from the wiki too. That may also be relevant if you've tried to email more people using the wiki's feature. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 00:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) GeeJayK offered to have a video chat with you earlier; I saw your Discord message, you have an opening to talk to him about setting up a video meeting between you there. I think that's a good idea BTW if you're both fine with it. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- i am based in london should that be of any help. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Oldman4 I'm not available for a video chat in the next 24 hours, but I could possibly do one sometime this weekend. I think it's more important for you to meet with GeeJayK than with me, though. Regardless of whether you convince me that you aren't Smith, I have no actual authority over whether your account gets blocked or not.
- Whenever GeeJayK or whoever else has a video chat with Oldman4, I hope they'll consider the suggestion I made above, in order to make sure Oldman4 really is the person they're talking to.
- One last point: I don't believe you actually think I was involved in writing those articles. I think you're probably just saying that in order to contrast yourself with Smith, who said in the comment quoted by Pinkerite that he thinks they were written by Kirkegaard. If you actually thought I'm capable of causing that much trouble for you, you wouldn't be going out of your way to provoke me in response to most of my comments here, including some (such as my previous one) that weren't even directed at you. Most people understand that there are some people who aren't worth picking fights with. Regardless of what you say you believe, the fact that you think it's worth picking one with me suggests that you don't seriously think of me as someone who has the ability to harm you. Tetrapteryx (talk) 03:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- For what it is worth, that doesn't look like a TOS deletion at all. It looks like the owner of the blog nuked it. The heading would have been bye-bye if Trust & Safety had taken it down. ExtremeAtheist (talk) 04:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
OK so a RW editor, Tetrapteryx, is also the subject of a RW article
I haven't paid much attention to RW internal politics, so this was news to me. Does it occur to anybody here that this is a conflict of interest? Tetrapteryx AKA Jonathan Kane appears to be every bit an hereditarian extremist as Emil Kirkegaard, even if they aren't actual allies - which, does anybody know for sure that they are not? The main reason RW is valuable IMO is for its HBD articles. If RW is going to start letting hereditarians play the refs, that's a very bad sign. And it may be relevant to Emil Kirkegaard's obsessive hatred of Oliver Smith, which so many here seem determined to aid and abet. Smith evading RW blocks is nothing compared to the horrors that Emil Kirkegaard and his allies would unleash on the world if given a chance. Some of you here need to get a grip on what really matters. Pinkerite (talk) 15:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- The Jonathan Kane article also shows that it was a mistake to remove the Emily Willoughby article. Willoughby is much more important to hereditarian ambitions than Kane is. The fact that her name is referenced so many times in his article is a clue to how important she is. I don't think you should remove the Kane article since his comics are of interest to some, but Willoughby is far more important - and the removal of her article sure looks to me like creeping hereditarianism on Rational Wiki. Pinkerite (talk) 15:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Let's have a list
All those with deep thoughts about the problems with RW's HBD articles, let's have a list of articles you think should be reviewed, instead of vague mutterings about how articles could be better. But if you're going to critique articles, make sure you don't make phony claims about them, like claiming that a source is missing, when it's not missing. Pinkerite (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Here's a list of all the mainspace pages (and redirects) the account created. The first half seem fine as they all relate to medical/food woo promoters; Areo Magazine (created March 2020) seems to be the first article related to eugenicists. Plutocow (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's a funny coincidence I guess that this page has devolved into attacking - of all possible topics covered by RW - articles related to HBD. Pinkerite (talk) 23:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- The wiki was successfully sued for "libel" not that long ago by He Who Shall Not Be Named, so there's a lot of anxiety about more SLAPP suits currently floating around. It's kind of having a chilling effect on coverage of bad actors (mass purges, anyone?). That said, RW is in a particularly vulnerable position legally speaking right now, so I think some review of existing articles is necessitated by current circumstances. I don't agree with the notion that a mass deletion campaign is necessary. That's panic speaking. Carthage (talk) 23:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- "The wiki was successfully sued for "libel" not that long ago by He Who Shall Not Be Named" - well I'm not a RW insider so I don't know all what's going on behind the scenes and I didn't even know there was a (an invite-only?) Discord discussion group until I read about it on this page. But I do find it hard to believe that the people running RW have not decamped to a state with more reasonable anti-SLAPP laws long ago. I'm in New York, which, as Trump found out, still has a solid legal system, along with generous anti-SLAPP laws. But if someone wants to pull a SLAPP suit, they don't actually care about the law - SLAPP is a way to use the law to hurt opponents by making them pay for lawyers, regardless of the anticipated outcome. And if RW is concerned about libel laws, why is the focus of certain RW editors on HBD articles alone, when there are so many other topics that could also be vetted? Emil Kirkegaard is a political operative with lots of connections to wealthy fascists - he could easily afford to pay a team of ghouls to mess with RW - and I think that's what we are seeing right here. Pinkerite (talk) 00:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- The wiki was successfully sued for "libel" not that long ago by He Who Shall Not Be Named, so there's a lot of anxiety about more SLAPP suits currently floating around. It's kind of having a chilling effect on coverage of bad actors (mass purges, anyone?). That said, RW is in a particularly vulnerable position legally speaking right now, so I think some review of existing articles is necessitated by current circumstances. I don't agree with the notion that a mass deletion campaign is necessary. That's panic speaking. Carthage (talk) 23:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's a funny coincidence I guess that this page has devolved into attacking - of all possible topics covered by RW - articles related to HBD. Pinkerite (talk) 23:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
The list
OK, here's the list that Plutocow generated, but in a more-usable format, whittled down to actual new pages created of living people (no moves, redirects, renames organizations, or dead people). I can actually still remember vi commands, which is rarely more powerful than WYSIWIG editors, such as in processing text like that. People can sign their name after pages read. If this coop closes before the list is completed, the list can be copied elsewhere if desired. Bongolian (talk) 08:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC) Deceased are noted with strikeouts. Bongolian (talk) 16:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC) An aft vote was conducted for this article last November which resulted in a 7-to-7 tie vote, leaving the article in place (RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Jordan Lasker). Bongolian (talk) 03:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Jordan Lasker — stubby, insinuates that 'Cremieux Recueil' is Lasker but does not give direct evidence though there are claims of this elsewhere that could be cited. Bongolian (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Helmuth Nyborg Bongolian (talk) 20:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thomas Dalton Bongolian (talk) 03:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Jonatan Pallesen Bongolian (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Max Lugavere - Lugavere is actually carnivore diet, not HBD. Bongolian (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Lipton Matthews - mostly quotes of him. Despite this he claimed in June 2024, "Continue to peddle defamatory statements. Rationalwiki is trash and a lot of you are going to be sued." (the quote appears on his page) Bongolian (talk) 01:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Curtis S. Dunkel Stubby. Bongolian (talk) 01:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Diana Fleischman Bongolian (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Jimmy Moore low-carb not HBD, in prison for 20 years. Bongolian (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Richard A. Passwater- Bronze Age Pervert - Health/diet + small amount of text on eugenics (not HBD). Bongolian (talk) 03:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Jason Fung - Health/diet. Bongolian (talk) 03:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- David Perlmutter - Health/diet. Bongolian (talk) 03:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Eric Berg - Health/diet. Bongolian (talk) 03:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Edward M. Miller - stubby, but probably deserves an article if only for his fixation on alleged racial "genital, breast and buttock size". Bongolian (talk) 03:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Lee Jussim - stubby, mainstream psychologist, has defended HBD proponents and written for Areo and Quillette, but the page doesn't make the case that he's sufficiently missional, he already attacked RW for being "Leninist" for our article on Bo Winegard which is part of his schtick (defending HBDers trying to normalize far-right-wingers, such as Dennis Prager). Bongolian (talk) 03:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Loren Coleman - cryptozoologist, not HBD. Bongolian (talk) 03:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ben Winegard - Accused us of libel on Oct. 24, 2020, not specifying whether it was about him or was just general trashing of RW. Seems well-sourced though. Bongolian (talk) 02:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Nancy Appleton- Shawn Baker - Health/diet. Bongolian (talk) 02:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Tim Noakes - stubby, Health/diet. Bongolian (talk) 02:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
H. L. NewboldAlan Cantwell- Barry Lynes - stubby, Health/diet. Bongolian (talk) 02:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Nasha Winters - stubby, Health/diet. Bongolian (talk) 02:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- William Davis - Health/diet. Bongolian (talk) 02:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- R. L. Wysong Bongolian (talk) 03:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Frank Lipman - Health/diet. Bongolian (talk) 02:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Chris Kresser - Health/diet. Bongolian (talk) 02:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Dwight Lundell -- Health/diet. --ApooftGnegiol (talk)
- Vinnie Tortorich -- Health/diet. --ApooftGnegiol (talk)
- James DiNicolantonio -- Health/diet. --ApooftGnegiol (talk)
- Joel D. Wallach -- Health/diet. --ApooftGnegiol (talk)
- Carolyn Dean -- Health/diet. --ApooftGnegiol (talk)
- Gary Taubes -- Health/diet. --ApooftGnegiol (talk)
- Tom Naughton -- Health/diet. --ApooftGnegiol (talk)
- Anthony Warner -- Health/diet. OK stub on skeptic. --ApooftGnegiol (talk)
- Aseem Malhotra -- Health/diet. --ApooftGnegiol (talk)
- Marika Sboros -- Health/diet. --ApooftGnegiol (talk)
- Konstantin Monastyrsky -- Health/diet. --ApooftGnegiol (talk)
- Zoë Harcombe -- Health/diet. --ApooftGnegiol (talk)
Edward Howell-- Health/diet. --ApooftGnegiol (talk)- John Heinerman -- Health/diet. --ApooftGnegiol (talk)
- Bongolian - Nancy Appleton, Edward Howell, H. L. Newbold, Alan Cantwell, Richard A. Passwater are all deceased. Barry Lynes is also likely to be deceased. Jimmy Moore is a convicted child molester and is currently serving a long prison sentence. R. L. Wysong is a pseudo-name, as is the holocaust denier Thomas Dalton. Dwight Lundell had a stroke a few years ago. I have not seen any evidence he is alive of 2025. It is unclear why I am being targeted like this through articles on diet related cranks. I have spent many hours on this website for years creating good quality articles that are sourced. On my user-page users in the past years ago said these articles on diet cranks and low-carb pseudos-scientists was good work. Anthony Warner needs to be removed from the list because he isn't a pseudoscientist. I merely created his article to promote him some more. Similar to myself, he debunks low-carb and fad diet nonsense.
- Lastly, some users on this page talking about deletions or mass deletions have never created an RW biography article. It is unlikely certain users here realize how long it takes to write a biography article. I am not interested in unsourced stubs, I try and create detailed articles. Some of these took myself 2 days to write. Firstly you have to read up on the persons background and life, then you have to spend ages on Google, Google scholar or Google news trying to find reliable sources that criticize their pseudoscience. Once you have done all this in notepad or word you have to compile it all together. Then for additional comments you have to look through the person's social media posts. The reason people outside of this website dislike my articles so much is because they are 100% accurate. I merely just quote what they say and source everything. Twitter used to be public but now it's almost private for users who don't use it themselves so I can't get much access there anymore. But you get my drift, it takes ages to write these articles. Even uploading photographs takes time and effort. There is a huge list of people who are pissed at RationalWiki. Apart from one article, none of the articles I created years ago are on the list.
- If you want to delete HBD people then go ahead because I couldn't actually care less anymore about those articles; but don't delete these diet crazies as their articles have been up for years and have good Google traffic. I am helping innocent people realize that these food-woo artists promote misinformation. In some cases the RW articles are saving lives because a lot of these people are promoting harmless advice (eat an unlimited amount of saturated fat, high LDL is not harmful, eat only meat and never vegetables etc). At least one person contacted me off-site through a forum I read and said told me that the Shawn Baker article saved his father's life because his father had a history of heart disease and very high cholesterol but was thinking of taking on the carnivore diet (an article I also wrote). Oldman4 (talk) 09:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Suggestion: if the consensus is that certain biogs aren't 'thick enough' to warrant their own page, perhaps we could create a listicle page which the stubs can be collated into? KarmaPolice (talk) 12:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Listicle sounds good to me. Maybe add their blogs, so that people can read the nonsense that they're spewing out. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 12:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Even if it's a listicle entry, RW still needs to 'show evidence' for putting them on the list. I think it would be a decent 'halfway house' for folks [like that AfD'd Willowbury article] for folks who have shown enough leg to warrant coverage but not enough for a page in their own right. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Listicle sounds good to me. Maybe add their blogs, so that people can read the nonsense that they're spewing out. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 12:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Suggestion: if the consensus is that certain biogs aren't 'thick enough' to warrant their own page, perhaps we could create a listicle page which the stubs can be collated into? KarmaPolice (talk) 12:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Discussion about Jonathan Kane and his article and with him |
---|
|
- I've checked some pages and the following on diet seem fine, even pretty good (these are also related to topics I have some earlier familiarity with): Anthony Warner, Aseem Malhotra, Joel D. Wallach, Konstantin Monastyrsky, Marika Sboros
- General reminder to anyone using Twitter/X links for anything they care about: If you don't archive it, there's a big risk the evidence no longer exists in a few years. I encountered some dead links, not all could be fixed.
- Large part of the reason for a review of Oldman4's articles in particular was the Smith sock suspicion, which was proven false. I don't think there's evidence that his articles are any worse than articles on the topics in question in general. But review and discuss more by all means. I think what I mentioned above, a separate discussion (outside this coop case) on considering notability etc. for figures mainly known for social media activity is a good idea. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 01:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
—cosmikdebris talk stalk 01:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Looks like we're done with this review. In conclusion, the articles are generally good, with 1 AfD'd and deleted. Tomorrow it's 7 days since the sanctions vote below opened, meaning time to close it and in turn this coop case too, with no further action. The only niggling thing is that Bongolian noted that the Jordan Lasker page, recently AfD'd before and kept with a tie outcome, needs work and maybe a later new AfD, which can be discussed on its talk page. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Some thoughts on the fear of SLAPP suits
Duce headed the opening post with, in part, the fear of future SLAPP suits, and that's the motivation offered for a quick mass article purge. I've been torn on the central part that's played in the discussion above. When it comes to the fear of being sued, the initial panic reaction in any such matter is usually not the most thoughtful. I'll point out that we've not had any new concrete threats or anything more than vague insinuations coming our way. The idea of keeping risk in mind is still sound, though.
Now we'll see what happens as GeeJayK and Oldman4 have a chat later on, and what unfolds next in this coop case regarding the main question of Oldman4. On the other question of the basic idea of a mass delete, I don't think it's required for legal safety. Duce also mentioned, then changed his mind on the idea of draftspacing and reviewing potential problem articles, which was another idea from the first quick Discord discussion we had before this coop case was opened. The consensus above now seems to be drifting away from a quick mass delete anyway, so this is worth mentioning.
Realistically, if we're sued again in a procedurally competent manner, currently we'd have the same issue as before with lack of funds leading probably to the need to settle (in the US, the First Amendment never, ever protects against that unless you're either rich or (as we're not yet) in a proper anti-SLAPP state). However, we also know from the past history of RW that those who've tried to sue us on the cheap have all failed -- procedural issues of various kinds led to it simply being dropped. That's happened several times, by contrast there's been 1 successful SLAPP suit. He Who Shall Not Be Named paid to have pros pressure us, but who else is willing to spend one or more tens of thousands of dollars (my guess) on that? To Pinkerite's points above, that writing about HBD people for years hasn't led to any lawsuits for you and is probably not the riskiest area, I agree that most of them seem to have a history of mostly just writing things online in response to things written online about them. It's different with businesspeople who feel that RW has begun to cut into their profits. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 00:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks - good to know. Pinkerite (talk) 01:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I also will point out that folks desirous to repeat He Who Must Not Be Named's antics a) not only needs to pony up four-figure sums for a lawyer to file a correct suit but also b) actually find a lawyer who would file it [not all lawyers are Lionel Hutz level of mercenary-ness] and c) hope that RW doesn't shows itself to be more capable of resistance this time around. So I second Apooft's proposed plan of action on this front. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- This isn't true at all. Now, I will disclaim I am not a legal expert, but I do know anyone can go to the court of their own jurisdiction and file a lawsuit pro-se, which doesn't cost anywhere near four-figures to do (it costs zero if they are deemed indigent). It may be completely frivolous, but unless the foundation is prepared to defend a case in Alaska (for example), you're settling. I could go to my local small claims court and claim $200 in damages against the foundation for something completely made up, and realistically it would be more of a hassle to fight that than to just cut a check for $200 with a demand that I withdraw my claim with prejudice. ExtremeAtheist (talk) 13:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- The fact that RW has existed for nearly 20 years and this 'very easy and cheap' lawfare has not happened suggests it's no way this cheap/easy. After all, our 'pissed at us' list is large enough and quite a few are American-based too. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Most of those people probably aren't smart enough to know how to do that. The more RW grows, the bigger the target on its head. The company I work for, which is incorporated in an anti-SLAPP state and has a forum selection clause, is a lot bigger target, and I will say most SLAPPs from pee-ons without a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of end with a work order from legal to take down content, while they're much more likely to fight someone with deep enough pockets to counter sue. My guess is it isn't worth it to try to enforce things like the forum selection clause when the plaintiff has a successful motion to be declared indigent. The trolls on here fall in that pee-on category. ExtremeAtheist (talk) 13:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- What you describe sounds no harder or more expensive than if I was to file a suit in an English small claims court. Which you can find many resources online [or even your brick library if so inclined] to talk you through it in layperson and is free. And if it isn't, this means it's not as easy/cheap as you're saying it is and therefore, the level of risk is exaggerated.
- Most of those people probably aren't smart enough to know how to do that. The more RW grows, the bigger the target on its head. The company I work for, which is incorporated in an anti-SLAPP state and has a forum selection clause, is a lot bigger target, and I will say most SLAPPs from pee-ons without a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of end with a work order from legal to take down content, while they're much more likely to fight someone with deep enough pockets to counter sue. My guess is it isn't worth it to try to enforce things like the forum selection clause when the plaintiff has a successful motion to be declared indigent. The trolls on here fall in that pee-on category. ExtremeAtheist (talk) 13:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- The fact that RW has existed for nearly 20 years and this 'very easy and cheap' lawfare has not happened suggests it's no way this cheap/easy. After all, our 'pissed at us' list is large enough and quite a few are American-based too. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- This isn't true at all. Now, I will disclaim I am not a legal expert, but I do know anyone can go to the court of their own jurisdiction and file a lawsuit pro-se, which doesn't cost anywhere near four-figures to do (it costs zero if they are deemed indigent). It may be completely frivolous, but unless the foundation is prepared to defend a case in Alaska (for example), you're settling. I could go to my local small claims court and claim $200 in damages against the foundation for something completely made up, and realistically it would be more of a hassle to fight that than to just cut a check for $200 with a demand that I withdraw my claim with prejudice. ExtremeAtheist (talk) 13:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I also will point out that folks desirous to repeat He Who Must Not Be Named's antics a) not only needs to pony up four-figure sums for a lawyer to file a correct suit but also b) actually find a lawyer who would file it [not all lawyers are Lionel Hutz level of mercenary-ness] and c) hope that RW doesn't shows itself to be more capable of resistance this time around. So I second Apooft's proposed plan of action on this front. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not being 'an optimist' here; merely looking at past form and extrapolating. 'If it's such a good idea, why has nobody done it before?' is often derided as a stupid idea-crushing question said by stupid executives but sometimes it is legitimate - in this case, if it's so cheap/easy to file suits against RW, why have so few folks ever bothered to try beforehand? I don't buy the 'because they are too stupid' answer either - at least, not from everyone. However, you do echo the point I've been making for some time; that as [hopefully] RW gains in heft and reliability we will face more organised resistance [take it as a badge of honour] and so we need to tool up for this [esp with the coming Orange v2.0]. Which moving to an anti-SLAPP is only the start; I would also suggest in our new state finding in advance a friendly lawyer and getting them to draw the board a kind of legal flowchart in filing suits against us [so then can realistically understand the risk] and possibly also even looking into insurance. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's easy enough to do that a child could do it, if they were smart enough to think to do it, but now the idea is out there thanks to me (oops). For that matter, one could sue in British courts as you suggested, it's just more complex to enforce it. If your courts are anything like US courts, they would issue a default judgement if RationalWiki were successfully served and did not respond to the suit with a lawyer. Paying 200 British pounds would be cheaper than engaging international litigation, if the plaintiff were inclined to take the necessary step to steps to get the USA to enforce the judgement. They could also frivilously name Gerard as a co-defendent, further complicating the matter. ExtremeAtheist (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- TL:DR version of above: RW has succeeded so far because all save one person has been 'stupider than a child'. This is a theory I simply don't sign up to.
- It's easy enough to do that a child could do it, if they were smart enough to think to do it, but now the idea is out there thanks to me (oops). For that matter, one could sue in British courts as you suggested, it's just more complex to enforce it. If your courts are anything like US courts, they would issue a default judgement if RationalWiki were successfully served and did not respond to the suit with a lawyer. Paying 200 British pounds would be cheaper than engaging international litigation, if the plaintiff were inclined to take the necessary step to steps to get the USA to enforce the judgement. They could also frivilously name Gerard as a co-defendent, further complicating the matter. ExtremeAtheist (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not being 'an optimist' here; merely looking at past form and extrapolating. 'If it's such a good idea, why has nobody done it before?' is often derided as a stupid idea-crushing question said by stupid executives but sometimes it is legitimate - in this case, if it's so cheap/easy to file suits against RW, why have so few folks ever bothered to try beforehand? I don't buy the 'because they are too stupid' answer either - at least, not from everyone. However, you do echo the point I've been making for some time; that as [hopefully] RW gains in heft and reliability we will face more organised resistance [take it as a badge of honour] and so we need to tool up for this [esp with the coming Orange v2.0]. Which moving to an anti-SLAPP is only the start; I would also suggest in our new state finding in advance a friendly lawyer and getting them to draw the board a kind of legal flowchart in filing suits against us [so then can realistically understand the risk] and possibly also even looking into insurance. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- As for 'suing RMF in English court' I shall point to the precedent produced by Parish v. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc last year, in which the English court ruled that it 'failed the forum test' ie you're filing in the wrong jurisdiction, dude. Now it's at least theoretically possible you could sue a UK based editor who produced said libel but you'd have to go to an American court to get RMF to cough up the IP addresses in question and then bloody hope said editor isn't using a mobile IP which is unregistered and paid for in cash so you can't realistically find them unless you then pay lots more for lawyers to track them down. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Again, I am no lawyer, but the legalese doesn't mean shit when it costs more to fight something than it does to bend over. It doesn't even have to be SLAPP. One of the most ridiculous work orders I ever received was to take down a (admittedly in violation) comment AND ban an IP from accessing our servers. It was NAT IP address in a pool of many from a major university, blocking it was pointless and only served to cause annoyance for people access the internet from it, but legal insisted. Dying to know the story behind this, I got someone I'm on good terms with in legal to share a little (actually, they showed me the court filing), it was some college kid suing us for violation of contract because we supposedly wouldn't enforce TOS (which was a lie because it was never even reported to us) because allegedly he is gay and someone called him a "faggot." He claimed somewhere around $300 in damages, from apparently having take a couple of days off from his burger flipping job (probably to go play video games instead) and go see a therapist because of his hurt feelings. From what I could see, it looked like he posted it himself, and even if not the lawsuit would have been a slam dunk had we fought it (believe me, we don't tolerate homophobia, but we have to KNOW about it to do something), but it was cheaper to pay the $300 to make him go away and make it look like we did something to stop it from happening again (realistically, you can't) than to hire an outside firm licensed in the state he was from, and there was no chance of actually recovering anything from a counter suit (plaintiff was in college, lived in a dorm, probably drove some piece of shit that belonged in a junk yard if he had a car at all...). It's basically the same way ransomware works, if somebody completely shuts down business to the tune of millions of dollars per hour of down time and promises to revert everything for $100, someone will pull $100 out of their own pocket to make the problem go away. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it can't. No one shot up Columbine High School until it happened. Same with Marjory Stoneman, Santa Fe, etc. No one shot Trump until it happened either. ExtremeAtheist (talk) 15:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Or to turn it the other way; 'it costs more to fight something than simply let it go'. Filing English libel suits costs money. RMF has no real assets so no-win/fee folks won't touch it. There's enough of that 'legalese' which means many libel solicitors will either decline to take the case or demand more money. Chances are, even if they were successful in an English court they'd then have to spend more money in the US to try to actually bring the suit to fruition [because I don't believe a person with the intelligence of a child would be capable of filing a libel suit in the US, oddly enough]. Even to put the legal scares on RMF [which was basically what HWMNBN did] still costs money. Your example in this case isn't relevant because money was clearly the goal while in RW's case the desire shall always be to gag us. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Again, I am no lawyer, but the legalese doesn't mean shit when it costs more to fight something than it does to bend over. It doesn't even have to be SLAPP. One of the most ridiculous work orders I ever received was to take down a (admittedly in violation) comment AND ban an IP from accessing our servers. It was NAT IP address in a pool of many from a major university, blocking it was pointless and only served to cause annoyance for people access the internet from it, but legal insisted. Dying to know the story behind this, I got someone I'm on good terms with in legal to share a little (actually, they showed me the court filing), it was some college kid suing us for violation of contract because we supposedly wouldn't enforce TOS (which was a lie because it was never even reported to us) because allegedly he is gay and someone called him a "faggot." He claimed somewhere around $300 in damages, from apparently having take a couple of days off from his burger flipping job (probably to go play video games instead) and go see a therapist because of his hurt feelings. From what I could see, it looked like he posted it himself, and even if not the lawsuit would have been a slam dunk had we fought it (believe me, we don't tolerate homophobia, but we have to KNOW about it to do something), but it was cheaper to pay the $300 to make him go away and make it look like we did something to stop it from happening again (realistically, you can't) than to hire an outside firm licensed in the state he was from, and there was no chance of actually recovering anything from a counter suit (plaintiff was in college, lived in a dorm, probably drove some piece of shit that belonged in a junk yard if he had a car at all...). It's basically the same way ransomware works, if somebody completely shuts down business to the tune of millions of dollars per hour of down time and promises to revert everything for $100, someone will pull $100 out of their own pocket to make the problem go away. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it can't. No one shot up Columbine High School until it happened. Same with Marjory Stoneman, Santa Fe, etc. No one shot Trump until it happened either. ExtremeAtheist (talk) 15:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- As for 'suing RMF in English court' I shall point to the precedent produced by Parish v. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc last year, in which the English court ruled that it 'failed the forum test' ie you're filing in the wrong jurisdiction, dude. Now it's at least theoretically possible you could sue a UK based editor who produced said libel but you'd have to go to an American court to get RMF to cough up the IP addresses in question and then bloody hope said editor isn't using a mobile IP which is unregistered and paid for in cash so you can't realistically find them unless you then pay lots more for lawyers to track them down. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Any conclusions drawn from small claims are not applicable to libel suits. They would likely be thrown out immediately based on being the wrong venue: small claims court (in the US) is only against entities that already owe someone money. Also the small claims courts have a dollar limit depending on the venue (New Mexico is $10,000, but as I said it's hard to imagine a libel suit getting anywhere in small claims). Bongolian (talk) 02:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was only saying EA was describing libel suits being as easy/simple/cheap to file as something in the small claims court [which at least in England was deliberately designed to be a legal forum which any reasonably-educated layperson could successfully defend/attack without the need for lawyering up]. Not that they would be done in the small claims court. And well, the above makes it clear what I think on that. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:36, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Discord
+ Is anyone able to go on discord on video in the next hour or tonight? I have asked GeeJayK to do this but the times have not been right. If he can't make it can any other user do it? This isn't fair to me. I can easily talk to anyone and prove I am not a banned user. I am online up until 2am tonight. You only need to look at me for 1 minute and have a chat to see I am not this other user in question. A Brand new suspicious user is now voting against me [24]. This is just a sock-puppet from the Human Diversity Foundation. Oldman4 (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Imagine being a paranoid dickwad and accusing everyone that isnt supporting you as an employee of whatever random ass organization you name. RicardoElPlomero (talk) 18:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Then go on camera and talk to me face to face. You are a brand new suspicious user and your first edits on this page were to post "votes", the Steven Gundry stuff you even copied from me. I advertised on my userpage I am writing it [25]. You are clearly a troll trying to cause trouble here. Oldman4 (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- You don't own pages bro. Anyone can edit whatever the hell they want. It's a wiki for a reason. RicardoElPlomero (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think it's paranoia at all. Emil Kirkegaard and his gang have attacked Rational Wiki in the past. Since Kirkegaard has received money from at least one plutocrat and controls the legacy money of the Pioneer Fund, why wouldn't he pay ghouls to mess with Rational Wiki? It's not like Kirkegaard has any ethics or principles. Pinkerite (talk) 18:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- We can do it right now if you want to. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 18:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think it's paranoia at all. Emil Kirkegaard and his gang have attacked Rational Wiki in the past. Since Kirkegaard has received money from at least one plutocrat and controls the legacy money of the Pioneer Fund, why wouldn't he pay ghouls to mess with Rational Wiki? It's not like Kirkegaard has any ethics or principles. Pinkerite (talk) 18:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- You don't own pages bro. Anyone can edit whatever the hell they want. It's a wiki for a reason. RicardoElPlomero (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Then go on camera and talk to me face to face. You are a brand new suspicious user and your first edits on this page were to post "votes", the Steven Gundry stuff you even copied from me. I advertised on my userpage I am writing it [25]. You are clearly a troll trying to cause trouble here. Oldman4 (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Oldman4 is not Smith
Just had a video call with him. Right from the start I knew I wasn't talking to Smith because I've seen pictures of him before and the guy I was talking to wasn't bald. I asked him some questions about his work here and on Wikipedia and easily answered them. I'll be honest, I was 70 percent sure that Smith was Johns/Oldman4, but this is clearly not the case. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 19:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well that settles it. I'm suspicious about what kind of relationship Oldman4 has to Smith, and I'm convinced there is one, but that's not actionable.
DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW
dictatormoderator 20:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)- We talked about this in our video call (not going into details for obvious reasons). While I can't say I approve that fact that they sometimes talk to each other, this isn't a bannable offense. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 20:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I do think that whatever the case Oldman4 should stop acting as a conduit to Smith, as there is a very thin line between that and meatpuppetry. Oldman4 needs to tell Smith that if he has an issue related to RationalWiki then he should contact the board and/or the mods himself. Plutocow (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm convinced it is meatpuppetry, but there's nothing we can really do about it other than keep a closer eye on article quality.
DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW
dictatormoderator 20:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm convinced it is meatpuppetry, but there's nothing we can really do about it other than keep a closer eye on article quality.
- I do think that whatever the case Oldman4 should stop acting as a conduit to Smith, as there is a very thin line between that and meatpuppetry. Oldman4 needs to tell Smith that if he has an issue related to RationalWiki then he should contact the board and/or the mods himself. Plutocow (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- We talked about this in our video call (not going into details for obvious reasons). While I can't say I approve that fact that they sometimes talk to each other, this isn't a bannable offense. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 20:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Kirkegaard is watching
Which I'm sure is a surprise to no-one.
Kirkegaard on Xitter: "Apparently, admins on RatWiki were stupid enough..."
I do have to give RW credit for annoying Kirkegaard so much. Pinkerite (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's from two days ago and doesn't seem to be about this coop.
DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW
dictatormoderator 20:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's related to the CBH (talk · contribs · block · rights · rename) case, but the fact that the tweet was made just after I posted a link to that case in this very coop is probably not a coincidence. Speaking of, I wonder how @Kadashova was able to find that tweet pretty much immediately after it was posted… Plutocow (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Smith drama for life?
Seriously, is RW ever going to be Smith free? For the past 5 years (atleast), anyone linked with Oliver D. Smith has been using this site (more or less) as a "battleground". Like earlier today, Lomax's page got vandalized by a Polish troll (posted a link to a polish WP page for some user + very poor English). And I don't think Duce's suggestion would help either (he said back in 2023 on Discord that anyone linked with the Smiths should go and Hatefuck each other. I'm pretty sure most of the involved parties, like Mikey, are highly Homophobic.). Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- From what I can tell, RationalWiki is but one front on a war that spans the entire Internet and nothing we can do will make the drama go away. The best we can do is make sure the bans are enforced and the community standards are followed. Plutocow (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think it's ridiculous how obsessed so many here are with whether the person behind an account with a fake name is the same person behind a different account with a fake name. I understand some of you are really invested in being RW editors and you consider Smith to be the most evil person in the world because he flouted your authority, but the important issue in terms of RW's reputation is whether the work is any good - if the identity of the authors here was important you would require ID verification. It looks to me like you're all being played by Kirkegaard and his racist friends to get back at Smith, for Kirkegaard's own personal reasons, and meanwhile you are unable to see that the threat that people like Kirkegaard represent is a billion times worse than people like Smith. You seem to have no sense of perspective. It's disturbing to watch this drama that has the most minimal consequences possible - except as a tool to help Kirkegaard get revenge against someone that he owes money to, and has no intention of ever paying. In some ways you're as bad as the dipshits at City Journal that Kirkegaard used for his revenge campaign. Pinkerite (talk) 03:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- We have no problem with people creating multiple accounts as long as they don't vote with more than one in any given vote. The issue with Smith is not whether or not he does valuable things, it's that he was disruptive enough here to warrant a permanent banning (I wasn't here at the time and I don't know the details). We don't want disruption magnets here: it wastes everyone's time. Bongolian (talk) 03:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've tried to read over the Smith drama but admittedly it is very confusing partially due to the involvement of other disruptive dipshits like Dysklyver, Abd Lomax, Kirkegaard, and Mikemikev and partially due to Smith's many alts and socks, some of which are disputed. If Smith wants to appeal, he can make the case himself but I strongly doubt I'd vote in favor mainly for his attempt to use the site for his legal drama, which is too troublesome to have around at this point in time. As they say, the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. Plutocow (talk) 04:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- We have no problem with people creating multiple accounts as long as they don't vote with more than one in any given vote. The issue with Smith is not whether or not he does valuable things, it's that he was disruptive enough here to warrant a permanent banning (I wasn't here at the time and I don't know the details). We don't want disruption magnets here: it wastes everyone's time. Bongolian (talk) 03:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not aware of Smith using RW "for his legal drama." Do you have any examples? Pinkerite (talk) 15:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Him using an alt to try to mass delete articles he created in order to help him in his lawsuit, which as some have pointed out could potentially put RW in legal jeopardy by putting the responsibility for having the articles on-site from him to the editors that voted to keep the articles. That is an unacceptable use of RW in my (and many others') book. Plutocow (talk) 20:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not aware of Smith using RW "for his legal drama." Do you have any examples? Pinkerite (talk) 15:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Smith seems to have been somewhat a Jekyll and Mr Hyde when it comes to the quality of his work; there's been several rounds of weeding out bad parts of it in the past. (The stuff remaining has in the past held up well on the whole when people have looked into it.) In case you missed that, it's a big part of why it seemed like a good idea to review the articles of someone suspected of being a Smith sock. After all, had it actually been Smith, it would have been very reasonable to suspect that something underhanded could have been snuck into the articles. By contrast, I've not seen anything like that in the work of Oldman4 so far, and didn't suspect such prior to this whole drama.
- On Kirkegaard, we woke up to his role as "wiki parodist" not all that long ago. It would certainly be a big deal if someone writing content here was suspected of being another such sock (writing articles that caricature anti-racist writing in order to discredit us and such). Nothing in this whole drama suggests people here don't view Kirkegaard as a problem. Both Oldman4 and Tetrapteryx deserve credit for pointing us to Kirkegaard's "parody" activity earlier, so we could root out seemingly all of it on RW so far. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 04:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Vote
Ban User:Oldman4 as a sock of Oliver Smith
Yes
No
- No - and it's creepy that you are all helping Emil Kirkegaard 18:24, 17 January 2025 Pinkerite (talk) 18:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 19:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Confirmed by GJK.
DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW
dictatormoderator 20:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC) - Carthage (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Per Geejay's Discord chat. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not the same person, but I expect more transparency from Oldman4 regarding their relationship to Smith Plutocow (talk) 20:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I can't say I'm thrilled about his connection to smith, but since it is proven he is not a sock we obviously can't ban him for being one.-Flandres (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- nopeAMassiveGay (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- per GJK. -RWRW (talk) 21:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I trust GeeJay on this, though I would prefer there to be a bit more blue water between themselves and Smith. KarmaPolice (talk) 22:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I accept the evidence. Apologies to @Oldman4. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I trust GeeJayK implicitly, so a ban for being a sock of Smith is obviously out of the question. But I can't say that this situation is much of a win for anybody. Spud (talk) 01:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- As per above. Bongolian (talk) 01:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I trust GeeJayK on this --Goatspeed. How's my editingCircularR
asoningPrototype lab 04:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Goat
- In case this gets lost in the barrage of posts, here is the evidence that Oldman4 is not Smith.[26] GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 19:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- So, those "Bald" accounts were all aimed at Smith, then? Because I always thought that Mikey was making fun of Cosmik. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Wot? —cosmikdebris talk stalk 20:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry, dude. Because Mikey was vandalizing your talkpage back in 2023 with these "Bald" accounts (iirc, there was a "BaldCosmik" one at some point), I personally thought he was making fun of you. When I first asked, back then, what the deal was with these accounts, PC told me that Mikey was just being an asshole. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Wot? —cosmikdebris talk stalk 20:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- So, those "Bald" accounts were all aimed at Smith, then? Because I always thought that Mikey was making fun of Cosmik. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Mass delete the articles that Oldman4 created
Yes
- If we keep the pages and the legal fallout happens, I'm not gonna have any part in dealing with it.
DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW
dictatormoderator 18:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)- What legal fallout? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 19:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- HBD weirdos wanting to sue over the shoddy articles on this site.
DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW
dictatormoderator 20:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)- then we make sure they are not shoddy. if they are worthy of articles at all. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Exactly, bravo. All articles should meet a certain standard and biographies of living people need special scrutiny. Although if somebody wants a SLAPP suit, they don't care about the content. But I don't see how anybody could say that HBD articles in particular are a potential problem here when RW covers many other topics. Pinkerite (talk) 16:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- then we make sure they are not shoddy. if they are worthy of articles at all. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- HBD weirdos wanting to sue over the shoddy articles on this site.
- What legal fallout? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 19:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
No
- No - and it's creepy that you are all helping Emil Kirkegaard Pinkerite (talk) 18:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Excessive deletions without review. I read all or nearly all of them shortly after they were written. Bongolian (talk) 18:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Carthage (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Check the pages first, then delete what we don't need. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Even if there are likely a couple deletion-worthy articles in there they can be dealt with individually, many/most of the articles seem harmless Plutocow (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- AMassiveGay (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Review, possibly reduction to some to stubs and/or the listicle concept I outlined above [that sometimes there's not enough to warrant their own biog page but enough to warrant outlining in one/two sentences of 'the eugenics community' or something]. KarmaPolice (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Seems pointless. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Do a mass delete? No. But I'd be surprised if some of them don't get nominated for an AfD that they don't survive. Spud (talk) 16:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Pointless, no need to obey in advance --Goatspeed. How's my editingCircularR
asoningPrototype lab 04:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Goat
- If the pages are kept for reviewing, can we have suggestions for where to put the list of pages to checkoff after the coop closes? Bongolian (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Possibly a sandbox page, possibly ATIM, it doesn't really matter too much Plutocow (talk) 19:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would be inclined to change the mission statement and delete all articles specifically about living people.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I shall point out as decided by SCOTUS Citizens United judgement 20-odd years back, American orgs are also legal persons. Better delete all articles specifically about 'living' orgs too. Sarcastic pedanticness aside; I do believe we should have a chat about what RW biog pages notability/currentness threshold criteria should be. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Bob_M, That's quite extreme: no articles about Trump, Orban, Modi, Putin, etc. Even articles that are not specifically about living people have statements about living people. Bongolian (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree that it would be impossible to avoid references to, or statements about, living people in articles. Articles about living people invite axe-grinders to bring their wars here. We do not actually need to write articles about specific individuals in order to refute specific pseudoscientific claims. I understand that this will not be a popular opinion.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Writing about existing organisations will bring those out too. Better scrap them also. And what about theories which are heavily tied with particular individuals? Better scrap them too. The line 'baby with bathwater' comes to mind here; although I will go as far as chucking out the bath, the towels and soap too. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- I wrote about article about individuals no more. There and there are problems with such things. Firstly, every man and his dog can create an article about an individual which then leaves us open to legal challenges. (Yes, I understand you could make the same argument about other things but they are less prone to personal axe-grinding)
- Secondly, living people do stuff all the time, including change their minds - and we don't have the resources to keep the articles up to date. Speaking of which have a look at the category about American politicians. Somebody gets irritated about one of them and then writes an article - and then forgets about it. I wouldn't surprise me if some of them are actually dead.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure that deleting over 1,600 articles or about 20% of our content is a nonstarter. Plutocow (talk) 03:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't really expect it to happen. It's just that we are bad at living people for similar reasons we are bad a current events. They change.
- But to expand my point a little further. Imagine that there is a pseudoscientific belief that people with black skin are more likely to be homosexual and overweight. Now imagine that overweight Politician/scientist Joe Blogs writes something which supports this. If we record this fact in the article at the time "person X said Y" - then we have no problem. And it will always have been the case that he said that at that time.
- Now imagine that somebody creates an article on Jo Blogs in which they describe him as a "fat homophobic racist". This is different for two reasons. Firstly it could be libel and secondly he could lose weight or change his beliefs.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- A discussion on style, guidelines, and adjusting the model of "what makes an RW article" in that direction could gain some traction. As long as we don't ban snark at the same time. It would be a little like the differences between our older and newer articles in general, but more so. Would require work to change articles, it may end up only half-done, but still... -ApooftGnegiol (talk) 10:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks you for responding. I am not for one moment suggesting a change to the tone of our articles or snark. My point is simply that articles about living people which will rarely be updated is problematic. It invites axe-grinders and leaves us open to legal challenge. My conclusion is that if we cannot constantly update and monitor them them then we would be better off without them. I understand this is a radical and probably unpopular opinion.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Okay, you meant something different. Apologies for incorrect hyperbole. I've actually been wondering this myself; that perhaps we should have a new category of 'living person biogs' and that it fires up an (outdated) warning for the top (similar to the '{update}' one or WP's '{stale}' one) if it's not been edited significantly in say, two years. So a) editors can then see which ones need checking/updating with ease and b) readers get they're reading a dated article. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- No problem. I would like to see something which works over time, is good for the site and has the backing of the majority of current editors. (I should also mention that I have been unhappy for some time about the more overtly political stance which the site has taken over recent years and this may put me at odds with many more recent editors and that my feelings about living-people articles may be influenced by this.) Nevertheless, if there is sufficient interest in this point, it might be better hived off into a separate discussion.
- To respond to your specific point, yes, an automatic "potentially outdated" template might be a solution - though I would prefer to see something more radical.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Okay, you meant something different. Apologies for incorrect hyperbole. I've actually been wondering this myself; that perhaps we should have a new category of 'living person biogs' and that it fires up an (outdated) warning for the top (similar to the '{update}' one or WP's '{stale}' one) if it's not been edited significantly in say, two years. So a) editors can then see which ones need checking/updating with ease and b) readers get they're reading a dated article. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure that deleting over 1,600 articles or about 20% of our content is a nonstarter. Plutocow (talk) 03:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Writing about existing organisations will bring those out too. Better scrap them also. And what about theories which are heavily tied with particular individuals? Better scrap them too. The line 'baby with bathwater' comes to mind here; although I will go as far as chucking out the bath, the towels and soap too. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree that it would be impossible to avoid references to, or statements about, living people in articles. Articles about living people invite axe-grinders to bring their wars here. We do not actually need to write articles about specific individuals in order to refute specific pseudoscientific claims. I understand that this will not be a popular opinion.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Bob_M, That's quite extreme: no articles about Trump, Orban, Modi, Putin, etc. Even articles that are not specifically about living people have statements about living people. Bongolian (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I shall point out as decided by SCOTUS Citizens United judgement 20-odd years back, American orgs are also legal persons. Better delete all articles specifically about 'living' orgs too. Sarcastic pedanticness aside; I do believe we should have a chat about what RW biog pages notability/currentness threshold criteria should be. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would be inclined to change the mission statement and delete all articles specifically about living people.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Possibly a sandbox page, possibly ATIM, it doesn't really matter too much Plutocow (talk) 19:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't care about this issue either way but I did notice someone has been webarchiving everything related to this issue for months, possibly over a year, so I assume there are people who care about this issue a lot outside the wiki. Otherwise they wouldn't be archiving diffs and stuff. Hope isnt lost (talk) 11:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Regarding the "fat homophobic racist" example, there's a non-exhaustive handy-dandy guide to potential libelousness of words (with case citations) that was published by the Media Law Resource Center in 2005.[27] "Fat": not included (but seems unlikely to me since everyone has and needs fat); "homophobic" (no, page 25); "racist" (no, page 37). The issue that has been raised regarding SLAPP has been could what is written on a given RW webage. Yes, it has always been and always will be that people can sue us for our words: people can sue for any reason or no reason. It's doesn't mean that they will win their case in court or even that they will even get very far in court. The best defense against losing a libel suit is truth (accurate statements, citations as evidence, proof reading). Bongolian (talk) 18:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just a note about afd's. If an experienced user like Bongolian, Karmapolice, ApooftGnegiol, spud, CircularReasoning etc wants to submit any articles for deletion that is fair game because we can trust their judgement but we currently have an issue with drive-by IPs and new HDF users submitting articles for deletion. These users are not interested in deleting articles related to diet, creationism or anti-vaxx; all they are obsessed with is HDB garbage and getting those articles removed. There was a previous discussion about this, I think the user should at least be auto-confirmed to submit anything for deletion. Oldman4 (talk) 00:53, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- it should not make any difference who submits an article for deletion. it would be put to a vote and require a majority decision regardless AMassiveGay (talk) 02:10, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- There's not yet any hard rules on who can create AfDs. Many seemed to support requiring autoconfirmed earlier, but that's not been voted on. But obvious troll/time-wasting accounts can be reverted if they create AfDs. An announced sock of some unknown person wanting to play games, "DryCleaner" was reverted recently, but making the same AfDs as whoever is in principle open even to newcomers. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 02:52, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think it is time to move on and close this coop. Users just need to go back to normal editing. I see several types of trolls obessed with this HBD nonsense. The HDF, that D Morris troll who has socked multiple times on here and Mikemikev who is still doing impersonations. There are over 8000 articles on RationalWiki and hardly any of them are about HBD. It's sad these trolls are only obessed with the same 5 HBD articles and trying to get them deleted. Oldman4 (talk) 12:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree. This isn't going anywhere, and discussion is basically over already.
DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW
dictatormoderator 15:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree. This isn't going anywhere, and discussion is basically over already.
- I think it is time to move on and close this coop. Users just need to go back to normal editing. I see several types of trolls obessed with this HBD nonsense. The HDF, that D Morris troll who has socked multiple times on here and Mikemikev who is still doing impersonations. There are over 8000 articles on RationalWiki and hardly any of them are about HBD. It's sad these trolls are only obessed with the same 5 HBD articles and trying to get them deleted. Oldman4 (talk) 12:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- There's not yet any hard rules on who can create AfDs. Many seemed to support requiring autoconfirmed earlier, but that's not been voted on. But obvious troll/time-wasting accounts can be reverted if they create AfDs. An announced sock of some unknown person wanting to play games, "DryCleaner" was reverted recently, but making the same AfDs as whoever is in principle open even to newcomers. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 02:52, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- it should not make any difference who submits an article for deletion. it would be put to a vote and require a majority decision regardless AMassiveGay (talk) 02:10, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Who pays for this shit show?
![]() |
---|
Look, so I'm new here, and my introduction to this wiki was to be reverted with no explanation like some loser vandal. Reading further into this business of various user accounts and their alleged alts, permabans, calls for CheckUser, etc, it seems like this wiki has a problem with being very heavy handed. I'll start with the permaban business. Very few institutions do that and actually try to enforce it, and those that do don't do it nearly as often as this wiki does. How many of you grown adults were banned from Kmart or Walmart "for life" as a kid for stupid teenager nonsense and have been back since then? How many of you let your BankAmericard, Discover, or American Express get charged off in college and now have another card from those banks twenty, thirty years later? Add to this a lot of these permabans seem to have come into play when "dipshits" were still around. I can tell you most tech companies don't take bans this seriously, we just close out their account and they're back again a week later, and as long as they're not continuing to violate TOS we don't give a flying fuck. It seems like the real problem isn't so much trolls as it is wiki moderators on here who think they are rent-a-cops. "Hey, weren't you trespassed from here thirty years ago?" Take it with a grain of salt, but I say the person who started this shit show with finger pointing is the one who needs to be sanctioned, maybe not banned but stripped of some moderation privileges or something, make an example out of them so this obsession with ban evasion feels a little chill. Thoughts? ExtremeAtheist (talk) 01:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
|