2025 RationalWiki 'Oregon Plan' Fundraiser

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 PayPal Logo.png!
Donations so far: $10064.65Goal: $10000

RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Not to be confused with the Chicken coop.
Moderator.jpg Moderator noticeboard
Welcome, BoN
Use this talk page to contact the mods and report behavioral problems.
The RationalWiki moderators are:

ApooftGnegiolBongolianFlandresKarmaPolicePlutocowSpud

Archives for this page

Am I allowed to discuss the current lawsuits?

I'd like to know whether I'm allowed to participate in discussions about the current lawsuits against RationalWiki. I recently asked Bongolian this question in his user talk, but he wasn't sure of the answer, and he suggested I ask about it here.

It seems to me that I should be able to, because my topic ban is from "HBD and HDF related articles", and the discussions about the lawsuits don't involve anyone discussing specific changes to those articles. I also have some background information about the lawsuits that might be useful to the board, including some that I think it would be best to discuss in public. But if the view of the moderators is that I should be limited to discussing the lawsuits via email, I can do that instead. Tetrapteryx (talk) 06:36, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Why don't you share info on who is funding the lawsuits right here? That would make a case for your providing value in lawsuit discussions. Pinkerite (talk) 14:35, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
I think it would be better if the board members (@Spud, ApooftGnegiol, DuceMoosolini, Cosmikdebris, and Ephrom) weigh in on this matter since they are the ones named in the lawsuit. Bongolian (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
Second. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:38, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
I don't have any problem with discussing the suits, but would prefer that it's done on the foundation noticeboard and not here. Whether or not this violates any topic ban is up to the mods and not the board members. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 19:27, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
I agree. Bongolian (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
I agree as well.-Flandres (talk) 20:08, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
Sure - agreed. But TBH I don't see what value he would add. If his "background information" was valuable to RMF, why wouldn't he share it privately, rather than sharing it publicly and risk alienating his racist friends and potential income streams from the Human Diversity Foundation (owned by his former(?) associate Emil Kirkegaard) and/or International Society for Intelligence Research (where his friend Emily Willoughby is a board member)? Pinkerite (talk) 23:51, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
Fine. Discuss it publicly or privately. I doubt it will make much difference either. Spud (talk) 10:50, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Iban between Tetrapteryx and Pinkerite

It seems quite obvious that every time these two interact that the conversation will get disruptive, with both sides accusing each other of smear, racism, etc. Since we ibanned Oldman4 and Tetrapteryx, it just sounds natural to me that we should iban him and Pinkerite as well. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 17:41, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

And no, I'm not comitting the balance fallacy here, I just think that conversations, like the one on RationalWiki talk:RationalMedia Foundation‎‎ will be smoothly if these two can't interact with each other. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 17:48, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
Explain exactly what I've said that is "disruptive." Pinkerite (talk) 18:03, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
If you can't see that keep calling someone a racist (even though that might be accurate) in a discussion that is not about that is off-topic then I don't think you can be convinced. I don't know if Kane is still friends with Emil. I don't know if he's actually trying to help the RMF or not. But I do know that you're not helping either with this behavior, and I'm quite sure that the board is not stupid, so you don't need to remind everyone to take Kane with a grain of salt all the time. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 18:08, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
I've called him a racist long before this and you never objected before. Jonathan Kane has never denied being a racist and his actions, which he's never expressed regret for AFAIK, prove it. And it's significant that he's spending his time promoting Kirkegaard's anti-RW campaign talking points. If he isn't rendering this service for Emil Kirkegaard out of friendship he must be doing it for pay. So I am giving context to Jonathan Kane/Teraptryx's claims, in case anybody reading the discussion is not aware - not everybody with access to the page is on the board, in fact there are many anonymous commenters permitted to contribute. So I am helping. Pinkerite (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
And it's pretty clear you're raising this issue to help Kane, since he's not interacting with me. He's merely someone with a long history of promoting race pseudoscience and being friends with racists like Emily Willoughby and Emil Kirkegaard who just happens to be promoting Emil Kirkegaard's campaign against RW by arguing that publishing articles about race pseudoscience on RW is bad because they exist through the alleged machinations of the all-powerful puppet-master Oliver Smith - who Kirkegaard owes court-ordered money to. Pinkerite (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
I've not objected until now because I thought you had enough self-awareness to stop. I was wrong. Regarding your suggestion that I want to help Kane for some reason, I don't think I need to answer that because it is fucking stupid. I'm seriously considering accusing you of meatpuppertry regarding Oliver Smith though. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 18:45, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
WOW you're even sleazier than I suspected. Unlike you, my identity is easily verifiable. Unless maybe you think that brilliant puppet-master Oliver Smith has been running my Pinkerite website since 2018 just to fool RW editors. You've stated it yourself - your problem with our interaction is nothing other than that I've called Kane a racist. Which I've done for quite justifiable reasons and which he's never denied - maybe because there is so much evidence demonstrating he is a racist. So if there is a rule on RW that you cannot call another editor a racist - when they undeniably are a racist, then let me know more about this rule. Pinkerite (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
I didn't say that my problem with your interaction is that you called him a racist, nor I denied that he's one. I'm saying that your posts on that page are disruptive and utterly irrelevant when everyone already knows about Kane's past. We do have a rule of two about civility, and you are not following it by calling me sleazy . GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 19:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
WTF is wrong with you? You said: "If you can't see that keep calling someone a racist (even though that might be accurate) in a discussion that is not about that is off-topic then I don't think you can be convinced." So yes, you did say your problem with my interactions with Tetrapteryx is that I called him a racist. It's right there in black and white! Pinkerite (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
You're kidding, right? There is no way that's what you understood. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 19:30, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
Also, learn the difference between soc kpuppetry and meat puppetry. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 19:02, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
So you think Oliver Smith, who I have repudiated over his lawsuit against RMF, is my puppet-master now? Pinkerite (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
Well, if anyone wants evidence against what Pinkerite said, here is an easy one. As most people probably remember I had a video call with Oldman4 (Kane's former nemesis) a couple of months ago on his coop case. If I wanted to, all I needed to do was claim that he was Smith and then he would be banned, but I confirmed that he was not Smith. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 19:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
I'm all in for an interaction ban between you and I. Pinkerite (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
Don't worry about that, I don't intend to keep interating with you. I do, however, think that you and Kane should be ibanned for the same reasons we ibanned Oldman4 and him. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 19:32, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
Well I think you should be banned for being a sketchy creep, a shameless liar and for harassing me in defense of that racist, Kirkegaard-talking point-disseminating ghoul Tetrapteryx. But while you're here, I will be keeping track of your edits to see how often you defend him. Pinkerite (talk) 20:20, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
So, are you calling me a racist as well? Just to know if I'll escalate this or not. Just answer, yes or no? GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 20:22, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
LOL - how about "asshole?" Will you ask to speak to the manager if I call you an asshole? Pinkerite (talk) 20:31, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
Alright, folks, you're seeing this temper tantrum of this creepy stalker (in case you haven't read the whole thing, she literally said that she's going to stalk me, even though she also suggested an iban between both of us). I've recently completed 7 years of RW. During this period, I was a board member for two years and a moderator for one year. In both cases I decided not run, even if I think I had some good chances of winning again. Indeed, those creeps even posted on my talk page asking for pics of Oldman4 a couple oftimes (see this one[1]_. So, if someone could find any connection between me and Emil Kirkegaard, feel free to permaban me. Regarding Pinkerite, I think the whole meltdown above shows that this person should perhaps be in the civility parole. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 20:38, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
Jonathan Kane has a connection to Emil Kirkegaard and that hasn't gotten him kicked off RW, so I think you're safe either way. And you attacked me first, and when I asked for specifics about your problem with me, you said it was because I called Kane a racist, and then you lied and said you never said that. So I think you are "where all evil dwells." LOL. Case closed. Pinkerite (talk) 20:48, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I didn't attack you, nor I have any problem with you (life is too short to care about Internet randos). I said on my first post why I think you and Kane should be ibanned, which, frankly, is the same reason why we ibanned him and Oldman4. You still haven't answered that, nor my point that posting the same thing hundreds of times is useless. Also, I'm pretty sure that the only reason Kane hasn't been banned yet is because there is not, to my knowledge, defining evidence that he's still associated with Emil. Heck, I'd probably vote for banning him if I saw it (again, I'm not saying that it doesn't exist, just that I haven't seen it). GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 20:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not a "rando" - unlike you, my identity is easily discoverable. I'm done talking to you - the evidence for your attack against me is all printed above in black and white and there's nothing else to say. So stop talking to me. Pinkerite (talk) 21:10, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
You called me "sleazy", "sketchy creep", " shameless liar", "asshole" claimed that I was harassing you (!?) and even suggested that I'm a racist. You lack maturity for this sort of conversation. Maybe you and Kane don't need a topic ban, but since you can't have a civil conversation, I do think you should be put on the civility parole. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 21:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
At this moment of time, this argument is like two people fighting over ownership of a house which is on fire. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, but it is like one picked a fight because the other called the arsonist an arsonist. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
I think I was quite clear that the problem is that the discussion always gets disruptive and the two of them interact, and as the conversation above proves, Pinkerite lacks the maturity to be civil. I still want to know the difference between this and Kane/Oldman4 case. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 22:09, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
Anyway, since the site is probably going down within a week, I doubt anyone wants a vote, so I won't discuss this matter further as it's basically the violin scene from Titanic. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 22:11, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Interaction ban between Tetrapteryx and Pinkerite

Yay

  1. Totemtrained (talk) 21:56, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
  2. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 22:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
  3. -Flandres (talk) 16:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Nay

  1. LOL - look at those apologists of the huge racist. Tetrapteryx already does not interact with me directly because I refuse to ignore his racist history. Unlike Rational Wiki saboteurs. Pinkerite (talk) 22:54, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
  2. Bongolian (talk) 02:45, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
  3. Pointless. Plutocow (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Goat

Interaction ban between GeeJayK and Pinkerite

Yay

  1. Yes please, GeeJayK is an ass. Pinkerite (talk) 22:40, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Nay

  1. Why? GeeJayK was very respectful in the beginning. Totemtrained (talk) 21:56, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
  2. This is dumb. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 22:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
  3. What Geejay said. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 22:54, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
  4. Bongolian (talk) 02:45, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
  5. Yeah GeeJay was being respectful. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
  6. No, but Pinkerite needs to really cool down. What is it with this aggressive infighting? I'm mad myself, but there is really no need. No offense. ☣🍆☣ (talk) 12:21, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
  7. Pointless. Plutocow (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Goat

Ban Pinkerite from discussing hdf and smith drama

Yay

  1. Yes. The discussion and its tone in the above were already insufferable enough to convince me. Totemtrained (talk) 21:56, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Nay

  1. That would be idiotic - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 22:07, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
  2. Who the fuck is that totem guy, anyway? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 22:55, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
  3. Exactly what I'm wondering. Pinkerite (talk) 23:03, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
  4. Bongolian (talk) 02:45, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
  5. Yeah no an account that has barely any edits (exactly 50 edits of this moment) wanting to topic ban an editor from discussions based purely on vibes? Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:56, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
  6. Pointless. Plutocow (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Goat

  1. Looks to me like Totemtrained is trying to sabotage Rational Wiki and should be banned. Pinkerite (talk) 22:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Delete all articles related to hdf and smith drama

Yay

  1. Yeah, it's fun doubling down on a mess that you don't have to clean up, right? Wow! Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 00:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
  2. I think the Board should have the ability to do whatever they think is in the best interests of preserving the existence RW. This is essentially what they have been entrusted with. I find it problematic that Smith should be erased since his lawsuit is regarding the Coop discussion about whether or not someone was a Smith sock. Do all discussions of Smith get erased, including that Coop case? There are only three mainspace pages that even mention this particular Smith: Manhattan Institute, Human Diversity Foundation, and Richard Haier. A fourth page cites a different Smith (Nazi analogies). Bongolian (talk) 02:45, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
    Furthermore, because of the legal issues that we have faced, I don't think this is even a valid vote. The Board has legal duties that preclude popular vote when appropriate (RW:RationalMedia Foundation/Role): "Keep the content produced safe" and "Provide financial support". One could argue that the role is also to "not exercise editorial control", as also stated there, but this is clearly short-sighted in the face of legal issues. One cannot completely absolve oneself of editorial control in the face of legal and financial jeopardy.
    Being a Board member is not a popular job, less so than being a moderator. People who have voted "nay" should ask yourselves, who among you would be willing to put your real name on a public legal document (as required for board members) and risk personal legal liability? Duce and the other board members did this for us. It was obviously very difficult for Duce to follow through on his duties in the face of lawsuit. I commend him for this. Bongolian (talk) 17:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
  3. I'm not sure the @KarmaPolice plan of taking the site offline for a few weeks would work. Accordingly, we need to be prepared for all eventualities. The supposed defamations happened, and they supposedly happened while we were in New Mexico, right? The KP plan may have worked if it really did look as if RationalWiki "earnestly" intended to delete all of its content while secretly moving the foundation, but whatever. Not even sure about that. Assuming I am not mistaken on this crucial front, our best bet is to temporarily agree to delete most race scientist content relating to this Kirkegaard figure. Primarily biographies, not orgs. These people probably all talk to each other. ☣🍆☣ (talk) 12:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
    Then we can cross that bridge if we get to it. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
    Ok, since I don't have any legal skin in this game, I will obviously accept this answer. It might be wise to close this discussion and, frankly, make it disappear before Kirkegaard and company find it.☣🍆☣ (talk) 12:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
  4. It is hilarious, to see legal pragmatism "rebutted" with sermonizing. I know this vote won't make a difference, but when someone shoots themselves in the head and miraculously survives, then says "not shooting yourself in the head is for fashie appeasers, NO MORE MUNICHS" and picks up the gun again...I can't go along with that.-Flandres (talk) 16:40, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
    What a bunch of bullshit - "legal pragmatism" - it looks like RMF caved in to the plaintiffs' demands. I'm sure there are good pragmatic reasons for that, but your reasoning is what now - "comply in advance"? And the very fact that so many of you accept this Oliver Smith = HDF bullshit demonstrates how much you allow the Kirkegaard race pseudoscience gang - which I am certain Tetrapteryx is still part of, if (maybe) only distantly - to control the conversation. And you mean HBD articles since that means Human Biodiversity (aka Racialism), not HDF which means Human Diversity Foundation, which is Emil Kirkegaard's organization. At least take the time to clarify what's being discussed. And BTW Oliver Smith is mentioned in the Haier article because of the way Kirkegaard has used him in his PR war against Rational Wiki. Clearly the articles about Human Biodiversity are important enough that they've impeded the racist careers of the plaintiffs even a little. If RMF can't find a way to continue to write about what it is legally permitted to write about - which very much includes articles about Human Biodiversity and its practitioners - then what's the point? And again, this discussion is only here in moderation because an asshole came for me for justifiably calling Tetrapteryx a racist and then because a sock puppet put the vote categories here. JFC get your shit together - or just admit you've decided to bend the knee to well-funded racists from now on. Pinkerite (talk) 17:36, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
    While I don't like the tenor of the above, the precis of the argument - 'pragmatically settling cases is one thing, settling in advance to possible future cases' is a reasonable one. This is why I say 'shut down RW for now'. Give the Board time to discuss the future of RW, including how we handle the clear/present danger of more and more suits. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:42, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Nay

  1. We’d only do this if we were spineless cowards. Let’s not give the racist pseudoscientists what they want. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 22:06, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
  2. Fuck BoN and his idiotic reasoning. See you guys in a few months, I hope. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 22:09, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
  3. Who is the creep who came up with this BS? Pinkerite (talk) 22:42, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
  4. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 22:47, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
  5. We're not giving in to these assholes and all the BoNs that have been posting here like crazy over the past 24 hours.. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 22:57, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
  6. Antares (talk) 23:47, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
  7. Deleting the articles is what they want, lets not give in to them (unless the lawsuits head that way themselves). Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
  8. Too overbroad of a topic to excise completely in my opinion. If these articles cause issues they can be deleted on an as needed basis. Plutocow (talk) 17:43, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Goat

  1. Who is Smith? Totemtrained (talk) 21:56, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Smith. Multiple people are going by that name. Totemtrained (talk) 21:59, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
    Just some long permabanned user (User:Aeschylus and many socks) who is engaged in a lot of legal drama, I'll just leave it at that. Plutocow (talk) 17:46, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
  2. Who is the asshole who came up with this question? Pinkerite (talk) 22:41, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
  3. I have changed my mind. I do not believe we should be voting on this at all, on the basis that the RMF needs to discuss/decide a future policy on suit-able mainspace pages [ie, realistically any living org or person we are critical of] and then, and perhaps only then the mob discuss it. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
    I don't think a no vote prevents the RMF from handling things in the future, it's just opposition to the immediate implementation of a sweeping mass deletion. Plutocow (talk) 18:23, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
  4. Apropos from today's Guardian after being sued for libel following journalist Carole Cadwalladr's first TED Talk: Bongolian (talk) 18:44, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Because what happened to me is now coming for so many other people. Not just weaponised lawsuits against other journalists and online campaigns of harassment and abuse – though that is coming – but the everyday surveillance and data harvesting to which we are all subjected. In the new political landscapes, that carries new risks.
—Carole Cadwalladr[2]

The work of a sock puppet

The account Phantasmagoria - is apparently a sock puppet - and is the one who put these items up for a vote including trying to ban all HDF articles, and so the entire thing should be declared invalid. Pinkerite (talk) 23:47, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

As the newly appointed moderator, yeah we should just end this farce, the wiki clearly has much more pressing matters at the moment. Plutocow (talk) 01:09, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Agreed. KarmaPolice (talk) 01:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

User:BurntToast attempted to delete the Cass Review article without going through AfD first

What it says on the tin; Their reasoning for this can be seen in the deletion logs:

This boot-licking fash appeaser site doesn't get to benefit from my research and hard work

And also:

"CC licenses are irrevocable," blah blah blah. You really gonna lean on a legal argument when it's clear RW doesn't have any spine in that regard? The only things keeping lawsuit-happy UK TERFs from using SLAPP suits to silence critics like they do in the UK is the 1st Amendment and the difficulty of overseas litigation. Now that RW has folded, it's officially open season. Might as well let me take my ball. It'll be easier.

TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 23:01, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

You conveniently omitted the fact that I restored the article soon after, conceding it wasn't solely my work. Whatever. I'm done. You want to start an inquisition while the ship is foundering? Have at it. It's your time to waste as you see fit. I'm going to "promote" myself, and then I've no intention of visiting this site again. Burnt Toast (talk) 23:53, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, my bad. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 00:30, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Resigning as mod

I'm resigning as a moderator too. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 23:57, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Is it because of recent events? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 13:04, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Look at his user page. That tells you just about everything. I think I can say that DuceMoosolini did more than anyone to save this site. More than most of you will ever know. Whether he likes it or not, the continued existence of this site will be more his legacy than anyone else's. Spud (talk) 13:27, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Eh, I never said or thought that the board were "fascist appeasers", like our more populistic members like to do (yet didn't bring any solutions themselfs). Like, I found out about this shit only a few days ago (I haven't been really active since December for irl reasons). I literally found out most of this after sending DMs to Geejay, because of Tech LANCBing from the Discord. We lost 2 good editors, because of shitbags like Smith and the likes. And I'm pretty sure they saw our fundraiser and launch torpedos at us, because we weren't at our goal back then (which we have reached 2 days ago). And what are we replacing both of them with? Probably more people that come here just to start bitching in the bar because we, for some reason, are now PubWiki... Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 14:14, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
I've accepted that this was to some extent a 'hospital pass' and with the situation and conditions of the moment, all the choices were shit. And I haven't called anyone 'fascist appeasers' either.
The issue I am looking at here is long-term. That there is now a distinct vibe of pre-emptive self-censorship running through RW, for understandable reasons. I ask you this; would RW be worth saving if we rapidly end in a position where we'll salt whole sectors of our remit on the suspicion that someone might take offense at it and file a suit? That if we have a board who will settle basically automatically if suit is filed [even after Oregon?] regardless of actual merit? That we have a userbase who are all mouth and no trousers; unwilling to actually do some serious legwork in rebuilding RW or even come up with actual viable options [yes, the do-nothing moaners piss me off too]? Even more importantly, if we have users who suspect 'RW is going to go this way', that they give up producing new content [for example, I've halted all my mainspace work because of the libel threat said pages would pose].
This is why I seriously suggested taking RW offline for a bit. To have a serious, adult conversation of what to do next, how it might be achieved and the realistic possibility of it working. For example, the possibility of RationalWiki's content relating to orgs and persons to be hived off to a new 'sibling' Wiki [let's call it 'QuackWiki'] which is operated as a private org and thus can have ads etc to pay for legal insurance. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
I would like to say more to correct some misconceptions about what happened. But I can't for legal reasons. Spud (talk) 15:23, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Well, that was an unfortunate ragequit. My thoughts:
A) My biggest problem with the board was a lack of communication. If the board needed some help, they should have asked for help from others to pitch in. But maybe they couldn't for various reasons...
B) Personally, I've had some longstanding deep "issues" with certain RW operational paradigms, which is why I've never bothered to even become moderator level. No need to go into "cool story bro" details, though, because...
C) One big issue that goes beyond any of my personal qualms into "the state of freedom of press in the United States". And this is fundamentally where the "what next" is (from my perspective) challenging. I'll give two examples:
1) Oliver Smith tried to pull his sue-happy shit on Substack nearly a year ago. It didn't work. But Substack has the backing of Kik Messenger Guy money. Do you now need Big Money Backing to have even a chance of free press in the US now?
2) We are living in a Trump 2.0 world. At the moment, this is a nation where even Wikipedia is treating the United States as a nation of increasing authoritarianism, and thus the Wikimedia foundation has to be concerned about free media attacks from deep pocketed American fascist shitheads like the Heritage Foundation and Elon Musk. At least Wikipedia has Big Money backing! There are plenty of other examples of US press freedom backsliding; it's no surprise that RSF's World Press Freedom Index ranks the (supposed "land of the free") United States as having "problematic" press freedom. Can "little guys" survive in this sort of environment, and how?
It's this sort of thing where I struggle with some of the "going forward" details. Yes, people on this Wiki might be in "do nothing" mode, but with the United States (the center of most of the RW editing world, for better or worse) sliding down the authoritarian path at the moment, can you really blame them? For instance, I can't find it, but I vaguely remember one comment in this matter where a user specifically cited US immigration as a reason not to get deeper involved in this Wiki. This is the sort of "cloud" that might hang over "small guy" places like this regardless of anything RW does. (And no, sadly, I don't have an answer for how to combat this right now.) BobJohnson (talk) 16:24, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Big Money. @BobJohnson, I'm afraid you've hit the nail on the head. Spud (talk) 17:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
a) I agree 100%. That there was a worrying level of silence on the whole affair; I appreciate there would have been stuff that the Board could not say and more that it wouldn't have been wise to say, but something needed to be said, if only to calm nerves and dampen pointless speculations. The silence also meant that the Board appeared to be unable to tap any wider help in, well anything - like for example trying to publicise the incidents to others who might be sympathetic.
c) Is a big enough concern I've started to very vaguely look into the costs/etc of doing a UK-based RW fork if needed [perhaps £2k p/a, with x2 that to setup?]. Or the 'QuackWiki' finds it's way over here while RW stays there.
2) Is why I think the Board need to have that 'serious, adult conversation'. Because if nothing else, it is clear that RW's status quo is dead. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Unless you know something that I don't, the UK doesn't seem to have any anti-SLAPP laws (Strategic lawsuit against public participation § United Kingdom). Bongolian (talk) 17:51, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Britain has some of the most punitive defamation laws in the world. Christopher (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Defamation Act 2013. This 'plan Brit' was one I was thinking of is one where the American enviroment is unhospitable to RW period. My v.vague costing also included media liability insurance / sinking lawyer fund. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:03, 20 April 2025 (UTC)