RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation
Improving help section.
I have produced a new/updated/expanded variant of our Help:New Article; it is Draft:Help: New Article. Would appreciate thoughts/suggestions on it. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:25, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- It's very good. Bongolian (talk) 18:17, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- Heh. It's taken me too long to write - I would class it as a full-blown 'how to' now. Plan to take a look at others in the Help section in due course. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:53, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- It looks really great except that I would suggest that you change the parts which say something like, "I personally ..." Obviously if it's in the general help section that our potential new editor won't know who that "I" is.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:23, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- I use that 2/3 times [I think]; they represent my own personal opinion on something which has never been fleshed out before. If [hint, hint] I find that say, the mods etc agree with those views I can firm it up. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- There is one thing I think we should encourage but don't; a 'further reading' point. Basically that if you know of good more in-depth work(s) on the subject, to basically recommend it to the article reader. For example, if it's about a person to point the way to the 'best' biography of them etc. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:30, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- I like it enough I can't think of suggestions to improve it.-Flandres (talk) 22:48, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- I'm fine with Bob's suggestion that it be taken out of the first person. There's nothing to disagree with. Bongolian (talk) 04:16, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- We might want a bit more debate on the section which references our "target audience". The text currently reads: "I, for example personally imagine the latter to be a curious fifteen year-old in the Anglosphere of average age and educational level."Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:28, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- I have improved the draft [removed the personal 'I' etc] and have sent it to main Helpspace. As there was no real discussion regarding reading levels my suggestion currently stands. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:01, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- We might want a bit more debate on the section which references our "target audience". The text currently reads: "I, for example personally imagine the latter to be a curious fifteen year-old in the Anglosphere of average age and educational level."Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:28, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- I'm fine with Bob's suggestion that it be taken out of the first person. There's nothing to disagree with. Bongolian (talk) 04:16, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- I like it enough I can't think of suggestions to improve it.-Flandres (talk) 22:48, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- It looks really great except that I would suggest that you change the parts which say something like, "I personally ..." Obviously if it's in the general help section that our potential new editor won't know who that "I" is.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:23, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- Heh. It's taken me too long to write - I would class it as a full-blown 'how to' now. Plan to take a look at others in the Help section in due course. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:53, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
On reading level
- Partly incorrect, Bob M. What I wrote was;
- Consider not just the 'ideal reader' (the imagined primary target for your writing) but also the 'minimum reader' (the person just above finding your page unintelligible). I, for example personally imagine the latter to be a curious fifteen year-old in the Anglosphere of average reading age and educational level. In that their vocabulary is large enough and reading level good enough to follow a general argument correctly and has enough background knowledge to not need schooling on basic facts. Yet; they will be unfamiliar with any jargon, they haven't done much reading and their critical thinking skills will be rather basic. [bolding for emphasis here].
- The sad truth is; my 'minimum reader' is better than a lot of Anglosphere adults. Estimates for the UK put the 'average reading age' of adults at 11, while in the USA it's 12. Michigan Tech says 85% of Americans can meet this bar. A lot of media and popular books are about this level; for example UK papers like Daily Mail are about 11. The latter bit was basically a plea for the writer to assume no prior knowledge on the topic and if you're making a particular logical argument you will need to spell it out step by step.
- In this, I am consciously kicking against the 'academese' which has infested sections of Wikipedia, rendering them 'difficult to unintelligible' to many. The reasons why is simple; too many editors have learned 'how to write' from academia and replicate this on WP [inc errors]. This happens on RW too, but to a lesser extent. It's why I urge all writers to consider how you write a couple of points down - clear English, concise English, focused English and accessible English. Don't get me wrong - I don't believe in needless dumbing down, but I do think we need to focus on making our articles as accessible as possible. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:06, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- One reason why its hard to write RW articles in very simple English is that often speaking clearly about weird or unpopular ideas often makes people angry. In the article on Lawrence Krauss I do not say why I have a bad feeling about the outline of his book The War on Science. One reason why I like to quote people is that is often clearer than calling someone a transphobe or a crank. I also edited the first paragraph of the Eugenics article in Marchh 2025 to list material harms which eugenicists have inflicted, not ideological crimes, because its easier to understand why killing people is bad than why "commodify the human form" is bad.Polydamas (talk) 14:46, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
- I actually touch on this in the new page. That we have been taught the 'correct' way to write - and this is in the polysyllabic, passive and indirect jargony waffle beloved by academia/business/politics - and it becomes almost an ingrained desire to hide anything controversial/upsetting/anger-making under a pile of sandbags lest it makes someone 'go off'. Problem is, it a) makes stuff unreadable and b) some 75% of your readers will miss your oblique points. I follow Orwell's 'rules for writing'; which calls for plain, accessible English in all things unless it's outright barbarous. That if you believe X person is a crank or Y is a transphobe, say it outright and then back up your allegation with evidence [for example, refs]. And if they want the fence-sitting splinters in arse one they can hit up WP. KarmaPolice (talk) 08:58, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- One reason why its hard to write RW articles in very simple English is that often speaking clearly about weird or unpopular ideas often makes people angry. In the article on Lawrence Krauss I do not say why I have a bad feeling about the outline of his book The War on Science. One reason why I like to quote people is that is often clearer than calling someone a transphobe or a crank. I also edited the first paragraph of the Eugenics article in Marchh 2025 to list material harms which eugenicists have inflicted, not ideological crimes, because its easier to understand why killing people is bad than why "commodify the human form" is bad.Polydamas (talk) 14:46, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
Better standards for articles on living people
So will there be a better system of review of articles about living people going forward? Given that the target of most of the legal threats of 2025 were based on articles about living people. To be sure most of those articles were absolutely fine as far as sourcing and other factors, they were only removed through [lawsuits]. Nevertheless, to avoid any possible hint of an issue with articles about living people, there should be an extra level of moderation before they are allowed to go live. Otherwise you get garbage like the recently-created article about Sabine Hossenfelder, who absolutely deserves a better article, given her perniciousness and influence and given that she likely has close connections to the same network of ghouls who sued the old Rational Wiki. Pinkerite (talk) 18:54, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Polydamas. It would be a good idea. For the article that you mention, I have only been able to review the lede so far, but while there was nothing fallacious, the quotes were mis-cited. Bongolian (talk) 19:31, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
- It's a good idea, but I have not the foggiest on how this could be implemented. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:23, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
- I would suggest:
- All articles about a living person must have a "lived" template with year of birth (or when the year of birth is not publicly known, other reliable identifier that distinguishes that person from another person with the same name).
- All statements about a living person that could conceivably be viewed as defamatory if false must have a valid and reliable citation that confirms the statement (e.g., the person in question actually said or wrote it within the citation, or a reliable news source).
- Bongolian (talk) 21:04, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
- Absolutely! Pinkerite (talk) 01:09, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
- 'Living' orgs can also file suit. Methinks we need real legal advice on this. KarmaPolice (talk) 23:11, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed. But to begin with, can we not set things up so that at least one official moderator has to review the draft before an article about a living person or organization can be published? Pinkerite (talk) 01:09, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry if I mixed up links in the citations! I view YT through alternative front ends so the URLs I see are not canonical links. I tried to word the article without accusing anyone of anything that they might sue about (and without letting her posts in 2024 and 2025 totally take over). I would recommend a clear statement of what she said or did before adding the Transphobe category, the transcripts of her newer videos are paywalled and I am not sitting through them, and the response videos, just to write a Wiki article.Polydamas (talk) 04:49, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
- I had a quick look at the footnotes and the links all seem correct although one was to an alternative YouTube front end. If you think the phrase about "merchant of doubt," or the McGill University staffer describing the War on Science book, are legally dangerous then they could be changed. I don't know everyone in her circle and she has been posting for 20 years so I focused on documenting her social network and seeing how her early work relates to her recent videos.Polydamas (talk) 05:39, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed. But to begin with, can we not set things up so that at least one official moderator has to review the draft before an article about a living person or organization can be published? Pinkerite (talk) 01:09, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
- I would suggest:
- It's a good idea, but I have not the foggiest on how this could be implemented. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:23, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
Why are all these articles suddenly being mangled with no explanation given?
Several moderators have gone on a censorship streak, mangling articles for E. O. Wilson, Richard Haier, Steve Sailer, biological determinism, Steven Pinker and probably others. We have been told there would not be any more deletions, but suddenly there are a whole bunch. And no explanation given, not even "authorized removal - Board settlement." What is going on here? Pinkerite (talk) 15:45, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
- User:Cosmikdebris, President of the Board, was involved in some of these edits and I would presume is aware of all of them since they were done at the same time. Bongolian (talk) 18:38, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
- And you thought my proposal to simply nuke the whole category post 1945 was wrong? How much of this category is even left now? Oh and yes, I did notice you censoring more stuff with zero info on to other mods about it. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:42, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
- Your proposal remains absurd although the way things are going, you might get your wish, incrementally Pinkerite (talk) 17:13, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- It's not a wish, more a pragmatic acceptance of the current/foreseeable situation. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:06, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- Those were NOT deletions. There is a difference between deleting an article and removing content from an article. And it should be pretty obvious to you as to why those edits were made. Spud (talk) 10:36, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- When will it end? For all we know, you could have agreed to keep nuking content whenever Adversary yanks your chain, from now on. I'm not saying you necessarily did, but since the deal is secret who the hell knows? Pinkerite (talk) 17:13, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- 28 people threatened legal action against us. We settled out of court. I cannot discuss the details of those settlements, and neither can any of the other current or former Board members involved. I do, however, think it should be pretty obvious to any intelligent observer what the details of those settlements were. The recent edits were NOT a result of any further legal threats. They were edits that should have been made earlier. Although it's unlikely that any more pages will be deleted because of further legal threats, edits might still have to be made to comply with the previous out of court settlements. And that could still result in some pages being deleted because edits result in nothing of substance being left. Spud (talk) 04:09, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- This is why the Troika needs to have a little chat with RWs lawyer so you can craft an 'official response' where the community can be informed of the whole debacle in a manner which does not risk resumed legal menaces. Silence breeds gossip and that breeds folks starting to grant bad faith towards actors. And if this is going to be the situation 'for the foreseeable' this is gonna get worse because the 'witnesses' cannot tell any newbie what or why this happened. I am also annoyed that this stuff is being routed through individual mods via the 'nod and wink' method and not being being done relatively openly by addressing us as a group. I'm still too busy and sick to press this further right now, but I will [and a lot of other things] soon. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:06, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- We can broadly say what happened and why, like I just did. Spud (talk) 12:01, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- "Broadly say what happened" is not the same as "official response." It's been almost a month since we were told it's possible that RW will never be free of control by litigious ghouls no matter who is on the board - why is it taking legal counsel so long to give a definite answer about that? Because if the answer is "RW will never be free from ghoulish control" then RW may as well have stayed in New Mexico. Pinkerite (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- We can broadly say what happened and why, like I just did. Spud (talk) 12:01, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- This is why the Troika needs to have a little chat with RWs lawyer so you can craft an 'official response' where the community can be informed of the whole debacle in a manner which does not risk resumed legal menaces. Silence breeds gossip and that breeds folks starting to grant bad faith towards actors. And if this is going to be the situation 'for the foreseeable' this is gonna get worse because the 'witnesses' cannot tell any newbie what or why this happened. I am also annoyed that this stuff is being routed through individual mods via the 'nod and wink' method and not being being done relatively openly by addressing us as a group. I'm still too busy and sick to press this further right now, but I will [and a lot of other things] soon. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:06, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- 28 people threatened legal action against us. We settled out of court. I cannot discuss the details of those settlements, and neither can any of the other current or former Board members involved. I do, however, think it should be pretty obvious to any intelligent observer what the details of those settlements were. The recent edits were NOT a result of any further legal threats. They were edits that should have been made earlier. Although it's unlikely that any more pages will be deleted because of further legal threats, edits might still have to be made to comply with the previous out of court settlements. And that could still result in some pages being deleted because edits result in nothing of substance being left. Spud (talk) 04:09, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- When will it end? For all we know, you could have agreed to keep nuking content whenever Adversary yanks your chain, from now on. I'm not saying you necessarily did, but since the deal is secret who the hell knows? Pinkerite (talk) 17:13, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- Your proposal remains absurd although the way things are going, you might get your wish, incrementally Pinkerite (talk) 17:13, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- And you thought my proposal to simply nuke the whole category post 1945 was wrong? How much of this category is even left now? Oh and yes, I did notice you censoring more stuff with zero info on to other mods about it. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:42, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
- Now that Bongolian and Spud-the moderators most qualified on this subject-have both weighed in, I can say the edits in question have been adequately justified. Implementing this settlement is obviously going to be complicated and some stuff might be missed on the first go.-Flandres (talk) 16:44, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
A somebody
As he blanked the Greater Israel page twice.[1][2] despite people telling him that this is vandalism, I blocked him from editing the page for 3 weeks. Just telling the mods. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 14:34, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
- I support this decision. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:42, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
- This person has been an ongoing problem since 2023 (User talk:A somebody.). Somehow, they still had Ninja rights after having Sysoprevoke status. I have corrected that issue. Bongolian (talk) 16:08, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
- I approve of the action. I understand the impulse to improve the article but...this is not how to do it-Flandres (talk) 01:28, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- Which I pointed out on the users talk page. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:51, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- I approve of the action. I understand the impulse to improve the article but...this is not how to do it-Flandres (talk) 01:28, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- This person has been an ongoing problem since 2023 (User talk:A somebody.). Somehow, they still had Ninja rights after having Sysoprevoke status. I have corrected that issue. Bongolian (talk) 16:08, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
Hope isn't lost
I'll admit I don't have defining evidence for this, but I'm pretty sure this person yet another sock of user:Neiltyson1fan. Editing the same articles hundreds of times? Fine, some people do it. Editing the same articles as him, including MMT, Post-Keynesian economics, Neoliberalism, Austrian school and Frank Zappa? Now this is more suspicious. But this lowkey hostility towards psychiatry[3] is probably what made me raise an eyebrow the most. I'd like to request the opinion of the moderation. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 19:17, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Bongolian, Flandres, KarmaPolice, Plutocow, and Spud I'm sorry for pinging you all, but I'm afraid this post will probably get lost in the barrage of minor edits that this person is subjecting the recent change pages to. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 19:19, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- You only got mad about it after I changed the Milton Friedman page tbh Hope isnt lost (talk) 19:23, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- You mean the guy I labeled an "ideologue" in our article? I didn't even see that you edited his article. Well, I think thats settles it. Not going to block you myself though. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 19:26, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- No, the section where you kept asserting Milton Friedman's theory on 1970s inflation as fact, and deleting alternative theories Hope isnt lost (talk) 19:31, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not going to discuss Friedman here, but I'm quite sure that I mentioned in his article that his adaptive expectations theory became obsolete when the the rational expectations theory became mainstream. I'll see which "alternative" theory you added to the article later. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 19:34, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hope isnt lost (talk) 19:38, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
Friedman's story about inflation in the 1970s is controversial however. Critics of Milton Friedman’s explanation of 1970s inflation argue that blaming Keynesian stimulus for pushing unemployment below a "natural rate" ignores the central role of supply shocks, especially the oil crises and global commodity price spikes. Critics argue instability of the Phillips Curve during that period further undermines the idea of a fixed unemployment threshold causing inflation. Alternative theories reject a natural rate altogether: structuralist views emphasize sectoral bottlenecks and institutional dynamics, while hysteresis theories argue unemployment is path-dependent, shaped by past recessions rather than a fixed equilibrium. These perspectives see inflation and employment outcomes as contingent on policy and history, not anchored by an immutable “natural” level of joblessness.
—- What part of the "I'm not going to discuss Milton Friedman here" you didn't understand? Anyway, funny how you knew that I like the guy so much even though that my edits on his article suggest pretty much otherwise. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 19:45, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- You repeatedly assert as true Milton Friedman's opinion on "Keynesian economics" being the cause of 1970s inflation and thus the whole ideology behind the ruination of the last time the Democratic Party was even remotely likable for at least 24 straight years after that. Whether or not you like Friedman or Republicans or Democrats isn't of concern to me, your edits are sometimes Hope isnt lost (talk) 19:56, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think you're an expert on my edits, and anyone can check that page and see for themselves if, and to what extent, my views on the guy are positive. Anyway, this is not what this ATIM case is about. I do think that your disruptive behavior here shows that you're still an asshole though, Neil. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 20:07, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- So I just happen to be me the day I disagree with you on something on a page you've edit warred, but not all the other days where I'm clearly me for months, makes sense. Hope isnt lost (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think you're an expert on my edits, and anyone can check that page and see for themselves if, and to what extent, my views on the guy are positive. Anyway, this is not what this ATIM case is about. I do think that your disruptive behavior here shows that you're still an asshole though, Neil. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 20:07, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- You repeatedly assert as true Milton Friedman's opinion on "Keynesian economics" being the cause of 1970s inflation and thus the whole ideology behind the ruination of the last time the Democratic Party was even remotely likable for at least 24 straight years after that. Whether or not you like Friedman or Republicans or Democrats isn't of concern to me, your edits are sometimes Hope isnt lost (talk) 19:56, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- What part of the "I'm not going to discuss Milton Friedman here" you didn't understand? Anyway, funny how you knew that I like the guy so much even though that my edits on his article suggest pretty much otherwise. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 19:45, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not going to discuss Friedman here, but I'm quite sure that I mentioned in his article that his adaptive expectations theory became obsolete when the the rational expectations theory became mainstream. I'll see which "alternative" theory you added to the article later. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 19:34, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- No, the section where you kept asserting Milton Friedman's theory on 1970s inflation as fact, and deleting alternative theories Hope isnt lost (talk) 19:31, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- You mean the guy I labeled an "ideologue" in our article? I didn't even see that you edited his article. Well, I think thats settles it. Not going to block you myself though. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 19:26, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
Read the OP. The reason is there. Though your presecution complex here is probably the strongest evidence possible. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 20:23, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- There's no reasoning beyond that which also applies for months when you were watching me edit. The only difference today is I touched the Milton Friedman page to say Keynesian economics didn't cause the 1970s inflation, which you kept trying to take out. Hope isnt lost (talk) 20:25, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- For punishment for making someone with Covid and halfway through their 'medicine' [a bottle of brandy] do econ theory, I also once saw argued that one of the reasons for 70s inflation was due to the glut of Boomers first entering the labour force, which reduced productivity markedly while not decreasing per-head costs. I am also going to argue that 'adaptive expectations' is not obsolete as most people live in a world of very imperfect information and as a rule even less skill/inclination to be the homo economicus which theorists desire us to be [which is why folks still think an inflation rate of 3/5% as being 'stupidly high' when our h. economicus would know that was at worst marginally on the high end of the average band historically]. But you asked for a mod's opinion, and here it is;
- Austrian school. The minor edits done by the accused did not change the general thrust of the article.
- Neoliberalism. Added section about DOGE and HUD. I'm not American and too pissed to actually care, but on the surface looks okay.
- MMT. Most of it looks to be about the originator Warren Mosler. I'm not au fait enough to instantly spot any bo-bos here. Though think it could do with some clean-up for laypersons to understand.
- Post-Keynesian economics. One tiny para regarding Bill Mitchell. Now I don't see why it's here really but it's hardly the crime of the century [or I might be missing something].
- Not doing Zappa, don't know, don't care.
- So the posts in question don't seem to really worry, so I will leave it to folks who actually know/remember the Neiltyson1fan issue and can explain it to me.
- PS. You're not fucking endearing yourself to me by constantly making me repost this message. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:26, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) 1 I didn't see your edit on the Milton Friedman page. 2 This page is not to discuss Milton Friedman. 3 The main evidence you gave me to figure out it was you (before this whole thing above) was your comment on "excess of psychiatry" whatever that means, as well as the flood of minor edits on the same pages that you used to edit under your older account. This will be my last post here. I'm not going to dispute what the moderation decides. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 20:32, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- I can understand your suspicions, GeeJayK. Unfortunately I only interacted with "early neil," when he was obsessed with whitewashing Incels. I'm not familiar with his "style" on other topics, so I'm not sure if I can diagnose his presence. (The "edits one article tens of times" thing is a huge flag but not unique enough to block Hope on that basis alone.) I'd like to wait for some people who knew him better to weigh in but I'm not sure if they are still here.-Flandres (talk) 22:00, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- The 'edits one article tens of times' looked to me mainly to be a person tinkering about the technicalities of punctuation and grammar etc; they were also [from what I remember] not done all on the same day either. KarmaPolice (talk) 07:58, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
Elections?
Isn't it time for mod elections - that is if the troika desire us to continue with this? KarmaPolice (talk) 10:19, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
- Only in November. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 11:13, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
To-Do List
Okay, we have the to-do list. But it doesn't really function as one - to whit, I noted in this AfD that a whole section needs an overhaul [American fundie colleges] but I lack the bandwidth to do this personally. Unless there's a spot to point this suggestion to and I've missed it, can we create one where such 'works needed' which isn't explicitly related to individual mainspace articles [another situation is when page merges are suggested]. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:06, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
- We have the "significantly problematic" template, but we usually use it when the article is not a stub and has at least some good content, which IMO is not the case for that Afd. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 11:22, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
- In this case that wouldn't help because I'm flagging up that the entire section needs an overhaul, not just an individual page. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:38, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
The censorship situation at RationalWiki
- This discussion was moved to RationalWiki talk:RationalMedia Foundation.
Blocking
Could I please have both Boredsocialist and Bored Socialist blocked please? Context on the talk page of the latter. Bored Socialist (talk) 19:13, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
- You're a Sysop, so you can LANCB (replace your current home pages with the LANCB template) and permanently block yourself, however we do not generally delete established accounts (the history or the talk pages). Bongolian (talk) 02:12, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
- Per your many requests I have removed your permissions and blocked both accounts. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 16:44, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
Proposal: RW-wide topic ban.
@ApooftGnegiol,@Bongolian,@Flandres,@Plutocow,@Spud.
On discussing lawsuits, the verboten list, the general topic the previous are related to and anything reasonably associated with them.
See this as an application of an emergency stop/halt order in order to throw a fire blanket over the offending so the troika have enough breathing space to find a course of action [FYI, you cannot ignore this indefinitely!] and then tell us so we can help implement the thing. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:10, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
- In order to ban discussion of lawsuits, the list etc. they would have to actually specify the lawsuits, the verboten topics etc. and that in itself is a problem when an organization has been so thoroughly and ridiculously muzzled the way Rational Wiki has. RationalWiki is in a hostage situation and the only real question for the future of RationalWiki is: will this hostage situation be allowed to continue indefinitely so that racists can yank RationalWiki's chain via monitors like Jonathan Kane whenever the speech starts to get a little too free. Pinkerite (talk) 16:25, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
- The topic ban could be aimed specifically at you and Tetrapteryx for now, because you both know pretty much what is banned. If either of you are unsure about a particular topic, you can always send an email to one of the Board members before posting. Bongolian (talk) 16:57, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
- a) I would like this to be a blanket rule to avoid any upcoming issues, b) half of that situation might solve via another method [check Mod board] and c) I intend it to be a temp placeholder rule until the Board comes up with something permanent. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:21, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree with that, but I think these two should additionally be specifically topic banned because they are the main sources of the problem. Bongolian (talk) 17:40, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
- I plan to write about this hostage situation on Pinkerite - if you or any of the others responsible for this Wiki want to share your thoughts please feel free via my email address. Pinkerite (talk) 17:55, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not going to contribute anything until after the board members are replaced, but nearly everything I know is public information anyway. Bongolian (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
- a) is this 'no contributions' in general, or just on this topic? and b) we cannot let the pair carry 100% of the can because this situation has been exacerbated by the delay [for whatever reason, not the topic under discussion] in the Troika to address this whole situation. And no, it's not going to 'go away' if it's simply ignored either. We mods have to carry the can on this a bit too, as in operating in a position where the Troika is almost effectively MIA on this topic we did not really step up to plug the gap either [oh wait, didn't you shoot down one of my 'plug proposals' last month or something?] KarmaPolice (talk) 18:13, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not going to contribute anything until after the board members are replaced, but nearly everything I know is public information anyway. Bongolian (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
- I plan to write about this hostage situation on Pinkerite - if you or any of the others responsible for this Wiki want to share your thoughts please feel free via my email address. Pinkerite (talk) 17:55, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree with that, but I think these two should additionally be specifically topic banned because they are the main sources of the problem. Bongolian (talk) 17:40, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
- a) I would like this to be a blanket rule to avoid any upcoming issues, b) half of that situation might solve via another method [check Mod board] and c) I intend it to be a temp placeholder rule until the Board comes up with something permanent. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:21, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
- The topic ban could be aimed specifically at you and Tetrapteryx for now, because you both know pretty much what is banned. If either of you are unsure about a particular topic, you can always send an email to one of the Board members before posting. Bongolian (talk) 16:57, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
Cheesis H. Rist! "the delay [for whatever reason, not the topic under discussion] in the Troika to address this whole situation" ... I posted on the RMF noticeboard on September 7:
This issue is still being discussed with legal counsel. When we are able to comment publicly, we will do so. Thanks for your patience. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 17:37, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
This does not mean that we are sitting on our asses with our thumbs up our fuckin' butts! And despite this statement the situation devolved into a whole big fucking shit storm in less than two weeks. How many fucking times can I assert that "When we are able to comment publicly, we will do so. Thanks for your patience." ? Continuing to hash this out and re-invigorate the pissing match between pinkerite and tetrapteryx does no one any good at all. Can't all the parties involved in this realize that we are a volunteer organization with limited time and funds to get things resolved overnight? At this point I am leaning towards proposing that both pinkerite and tetrapteryx are premabanned. Show me what the fuck they've done to improve this wiki in the past six fuckin' months. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 18:28, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
- Erm, I will point to the top, where the proposal was to give you three breathing space to get stuff done? The rest is irrelevant to the proposal. But my feelings is that part of this current shit-storm was due to nobody doing a firm 'this shit will not fly' ruling - which is why I am aiming this proposal at everyone and not just the current offenders. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:04, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
- I would agree with-at least-topic banning Tetra and Pinkerite, but Cosmikdebris has a point. The presence of Tetra and Pinkerite is largely defined by ripping open a barely healed wound that nearly bled RW to death. We are dealing with some obssesive people who constantly threaten RW because it is seen as collateral damage in a vendetta.
- Also, seriously, can we stop poking at this and let the people in the know deal with it? There are some people here who think they are "helping-" being the Socratic gadfly-when they are, in reality, stumbling around in the dark knocking things over.-Flandres (talk) 20:29, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
- Thus the proposal. It's an official acknowledgement that 'this is a wound and mods should and must intervene immediately to stop it reopening'. It is also official and public. It means everyone knows and nobody can claim going forward 'they did not know'. Wounds do not heal if we all simply pretend it doesn't exist and somehow 'goes away'. Or decides to start chucking out folks because they remind us the wounds exist.
- I will also point out the two main suspects are not the only ones going here. I've seen BoN activity on certain talkpages etc doing similar. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Flandres I think I've said this before, but if you guys want me to not talk about the lawsuits anymore, all you have to do is ask me not to. Until today, I was under the (mistaken) impression that my comments about that were still perceived as helpful. Now that it's clear they aren't, I doubt I'll be commenting about it again, whether I get topic banned from discussing it or not.
- Also, if Pinkerite and I are going to both be under topic bans with respect to this set of issues, I'd suggest also giving her and me an interaction ban. A large part of what's causing the current issue is her repeatedly seeking me out in various discussions and demanding I answer her questions, with the constantly implied (or explicitly stated) threat that she'll bring me unwanted media attention if I fail to provide a satisfactory answer. Tetrapteryx (talk) 20:48, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
- My goodness Jonathan Kane, what a huge liar you are, with your "her repeatedly seeking me out in various discussions and demanding I answer her questions" You spent yesterday defaming me, which is why you are an issue now. What on earth could motivate you to be so despicable? Pinkerite (talk) 20:56, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
- Please stop asking me things like this. I have to stop taking your bait, okay? You've been playing me for a fool and I've been falling for it, and I've been a retard for having fallen for it for as long as I did. Tetrapteryx (talk) 21:04, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
- I care about the free speech rights of RationalWiki - that's my big crime. Versus Jonathan Kane who is working for the mortal enemies of RationalWiki and free speech. How stupid do you have to be to equate me with Jonathan Kane? But then, Cosmikdebris is one of the two people who Jonathan Kane and friends have taken hostage - if anybody says one word that displeases Kane & co. they threaten Cosmikdebris and Spud with legal retaliation - and then Cosmikdebris and Spud attack editors of RationalWiki. And that's the most benign reading of the situation. It seems very strange that it is taking so long for lawyers to respond to questions that were asked over a month ago. That's obviously why this discussion keeps coming up. And I would not be a bit surprised if the issue gets put off indefinitely, and anybody who asks questions about it will be permanently banned. What a nice Wiki you're all "volunteering" for. Pinkerite (talk) 20:42, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
- Thus my proposal. If everyone [well, mods] agrees to figuratively put up police tape around the huge elephant in the room we're scared of mentioning, it gives the Troika enough time to come up with a more perma solution. I am willing to give good faith regarding this to them but as I have repeatedly indicated I will not let this situation go on indefinitely. Yes, this is my hill and I've given myself concrete shoes for this.
- I care about the free speech rights of RationalWiki - that's my big crime. Versus Jonathan Kane who is working for the mortal enemies of RationalWiki and free speech. How stupid do you have to be to equate me with Jonathan Kane? But then, Cosmikdebris is one of the two people who Jonathan Kane and friends have taken hostage - if anybody says one word that displeases Kane & co. they threaten Cosmikdebris and Spud with legal retaliation - and then Cosmikdebris and Spud attack editors of RationalWiki. And that's the most benign reading of the situation. It seems very strange that it is taking so long for lawyers to respond to questions that were asked over a month ago. That's obviously why this discussion keeps coming up. And I would not be a bit surprised if the issue gets put off indefinitely, and anybody who asks questions about it will be permanently banned. What a nice Wiki you're all "volunteering" for. Pinkerite (talk) 20:42, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
- I shall also suggest this; that if you are so certain that Tetrapteryx is 'of the Verboten List team', why continue to interact? It makes perfect logical sense to suggest they are [in this case] deliberately trying to rile you [and ideally others] to say shit you shouldn't so they can set the legal ghouls on us and kill RW? KarmaPolice (talk) 21:33, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
- This is a topic that I think should be more for the board to answer than the mods, so take my opinion with a grain of salt. I do believe it is wise however to not comment on the situation until the board says it's safe to say so. Plutocow (talk) 23:08, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
- I am all for ending the drama caused by this topic. We've plodded through this topic too many times already. I propose for a 3 or 6-month ban for bringing up the topic again (Board members excepted) plus the immediate reversion of the offending text. The rule could change once there is confirmed legal clarity. Bongolian (talk) 23:11, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
- This is a topic that I think should be more for the board to answer than the mods, so take my opinion with a grain of salt. I do believe it is wise however to not comment on the situation until the board says it's safe to say so. Plutocow (talk) 23:08, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
- There's no reason why the issue is taking so long to be addressed by legal counsel, and the fact that you're proposing a 3 or 6 month long censorship suggests you expect to never receive legal clarity such that RationalWiki is no longer held hostage through its Board members. Like I said, anybody who wants to share their thoughts, my Pinkerite blog is free of censorship. And if it ever was censored by racists and neo-Nazis, I would kill it rather than accommodate them. Pinkerite (talk) 01:13, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
Like it or not this is not the old mobocracy. Unlike before, the board can override what moderators or what the mob does, which includes if the mods or the mob does nothing. In other words if there is no solution here to what is clearly causing grief among the board, the board is going to step in. Someone else is free to propose an alternative to what I proposed (e.g., 3-month ban to be ended when legal jeopardy has passed. Bongolian (talk) 02:49, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
- Site-wide topic-ban until the issue is resolved sounds good to me. It's clear that there are a some individuals for whom their own axe-grinding is more important than the future of the site.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:56, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
- -Yes, this is something the Board should/will ultimately deal with. Yes, they are awaiting on legal counsel on this. But there was nothing stopping them rigging up a provisional ruling on the matter and/or instructing us mods to do so. Thus my comment of them being 'effectively MIA on the topic'. I mean, they still have not even clarified what they want us mods to do or not do.
- -Pinkerite does raise a partial point here. It's all well and good for the Troika to point out 'it's only been a couple of weeks' [since their announcement] but thing is questions in this vein were raised in June. If funds are an issue [I could believe the agreement is outside the speciality of RWs lawyer so it takes extra time/research/outsource etc], why not hold a fundraiser for it? [in fact, what happened to the 'new org fundraiser' which was suggested and apparently Troika-blessed back in June?]. On a more general point, while they have zero obligation to do so, it may be an idea for them to post a quick summary at the end of each month of what they've been discussing, has been decided, has been planned etc [obviously, not the stuff which needs to remain private] so nobody needs to pester them for updates? Oh, and before anyone says 'but they did' I am going to retort 'let it be in an easily accessible location [say a 'minutes page' for the RMF noticeboard] and not buried in rando conversations here/there.
- A calendar 3-month ban would take us right into the cusp of the Christmas/N Year 'dead zone', so I propose adding 19 days to it, so taking the automatic expiry date of Mon 5th Jan. That should be more than enough time to get all the legal questions cleared up etc. As there will be an election between now and then [unless there's no more elections] the new mod board can extend it if they see fit to. Naturally, if the Board get all their legal ducks shot before then the ban can be immediately discarded. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:52, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
- As both a mod and a member of the Board, I fully support a site wide ban on discussing our legal difficulties until Monday 5 January.
- I would also like a ban on Tetrapetryx ever talking about them again and never again acting as messenger between us and those that tried to sue us. And I would like an interaction ban between Pinkerite and Tetrapetryx. Spud (talk) 13:49, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
- I believe the open coop case is a better forum for 2/ and 3/ may be rendered moot by the decisions of 2/. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:48, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
- From what Spud just told me on my Talk page, it appears that the Oregon RationalMedia Foundation will never be free of racist neo-Nazi control because of the out of court settlement made by New Mexico Board members - he seems to say that all current and former Board members will always be in legal jeopardy for anything posted on the Oregon-based RationalWiki as long the Oregon RationalMedia Foundation exists - and whether or not the current or former Board members completely separate from the organization. As he said: "Resigning from the Board would not make any difference, I would still be bound by the conditions of the out of court settlement I agreed to." I'm not a lawyer, but it hardly seems possible that this could be a valid legal agreement. But then, if it is a secret arrangement, I suppose it doesn't have to be based on actual laws. And so it's no wonder Board members are so heavy-handed about controlling Oregon-based RationalWiki - as Bongalian says "this is not the old mobocracy" - the Oregon RationalMedia Foundation is now entirely controlled by stooges cooperating with the neo-Nazis/racist cause, pretending theirs is a free and "rational" wiki, when in reality it's a Potemkin village
Pinkerite (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
- From what Spud just told me on my Talk page, it appears that the Oregon RationalMedia Foundation will never be free of racist neo-Nazi control because of the out of court settlement made by New Mexico Board members - he seems to say that all current and former Board members will always be in legal jeopardy for anything posted on the Oregon-based RationalWiki as long the Oregon RationalMedia Foundation exists - and whether or not the current or former Board members completely separate from the organization. As he said: "Resigning from the Board would not make any difference, I would still be bound by the conditions of the out of court settlement I agreed to." I'm not a lawyer, but it hardly seems possible that this could be a valid legal agreement. But then, if it is a secret arrangement, I suppose it doesn't have to be based on actual laws. And so it's no wonder Board members are so heavy-handed about controlling Oregon-based RationalWiki - as Bongalian says "this is not the old mobocracy" - the Oregon RationalMedia Foundation is now entirely controlled by stooges cooperating with the neo-Nazis/racist cause, pretending theirs is a free and "rational" wiki, when in reality it's a Potemkin village
- I believe the open coop case is a better forum for 2/ and 3/ may be rendered moot by the decisions of 2/. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:48, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
- A calendar 3-month ban would take us right into the cusp of the Christmas/N Year 'dead zone', so I propose adding 19 days to it, so taking the automatic expiry date of Mon 5th Jan. That should be more than enough time to get all the legal questions cleared up etc. As there will be an election between now and then [unless there's no more elections] the new mod board can extend it if they see fit to. Naturally, if the Board get all their legal ducks shot before then the ban can be immediately discarded. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:52, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
Vote
Proposal: a 3-6-month block for henceforth mentioning the most recent litigation against RW, or any of the litigants against RW. The block may be discretionarily removed by a moderator (or board member) only after RW has been relieved from legal jeopardy. It may also be extended by a moderator or board member if legal jeopardy continues beyond that point. Anyone with any doubt about whether a topic is forbidden must first contact a Board member (or a moderator) by email to receive clearance before posting.
- Why did you take it upon yourself to almost double the time? I thought we were starting to coalesce around 3m+19d. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:18, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
- It was a commendable descion on the part of Bongolian and I support it wholeheartedly.-Flandres (talk) 17:30, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
- Well I don't. Do you honestly believe that it will require six months to get a legal opinion? What was wrong with 3m/19d? If by that point more time was needed, the ban can be extended. I won't mince words here; I feel six months off the bat does start to smell a bit along the lines of 'later means never' and some of the more outlandish suggestions heard on this topic might gain traction. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:44, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
- I added the option for 3-months. I don't really care that much about the time length. Bongolian (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
- No doubt because you know that nothing will ever happen so it doesn't matter whether you clamp down for 2 months or 200. JFC - so pathetic. Pinkerite (talk) 03:32, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:58, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
- I added the option for 3-months. I don't really care that much about the time length. Bongolian (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
- Well I don't. Do you honestly believe that it will require six months to get a legal opinion? What was wrong with 3m/19d? If by that point more time was needed, the ban can be extended. I won't mince words here; I feel six months off the bat does start to smell a bit along the lines of 'later means never' and some of the more outlandish suggestions heard on this topic might gain traction. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:44, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
- It was a commendable descion on the part of Bongolian and I support it wholeheartedly.-Flandres (talk) 17:30, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
Nay
Yea, 3-months
- Enough time to actually 'work with', but not too long. Can always be extended if needed. Fear 6 months might become an unintentional invitation to procrastination. Esp as one of the questions answered should be 'legal protection of RW editors'. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:58, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
- What KarmaPolice said. Spud (talk) 11:10, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
- Based on Spud's vote, indicating that this is sufficient. Bongolian (talk) 17:07, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
Yea, 6-months
#Bongolian (talk) 17:15, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
- -Flandres (talk) 17:30, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
- Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:08, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
- Scream!! (talk) 18:43, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
Goat
LOL - look at you all going through the pretense that you have a free and open wiki. Your neo-Nazi chain-yankers must be very pleased. Remember, if you have anything to share about this travesty, my email address is listed at Pinkerite. I'll be commemorating each time one of your phony deadlines pass and nothing happens - nothing but you all continually aiding and abetting racists and neo-Nazi freaks - who have plenty of money to bribe pathetic losers. Pinkerite (talk) 03:27, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
- Are the "Nay" votes on three and six months really necessary? I can imagine a situation with six months and three months being tied with "yea" and "nay"- and in that case a single "nay" vote on both options would negate them both.
- Shouldn't the options be "6 months", "3 months" or "do nothing"?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 05:45, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
- You're right, I suppose. But doing that means double counting a single person's vote in this case (KarmaPolice), which is hardly a fair resolution for a tie. In my view, in the case of a tie, it would be better for a board member to break the tie since they are the one's primarily affected by adverse consequences. Bongolian (talk) 17:42, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
- The vote should be between 'No', 'Yes, 3m' and Yes, 6m'. Feel free to discount my nay. I also say that when there's a 'Yes [duration]', a person should vote for the maximum length they believe in and take it as read they also voted for all the Yes with lower terms also. Example;
- You're right, I suppose. But doing that means double counting a single person's vote in this case (KarmaPolice), which is hardly a fair resolution for a tie. In my view, in the case of a tie, it would be better for a board member to break the tie since they are the one's primarily affected by adverse consequences. Bongolian (talk) 17:42, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
- Proposal: 'Ban ArseHole for being an arsehole'
- 7 - No
- 2 - Yes, 1w
- 3 - Yes, 1m
- 3 - Yes, 2m
- The '1 week ban' wins because it's cumulatively 7:8. To ban Arsehole is the absolute majority of the electorate, though there were differing opinions of how long. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:15, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
- I would agree completely with that interpretation. Perhaps it would be best it the "nay" sections were removed. As you are the only editor with a "Nay" you might wish to make the change.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:53, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
- The only question is regarding Goats. I am inclined to say that they are effectively abstentions and/or discussions which aren't actual votes. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:05, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
- Goat votes have never counted for or against any topic.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:12, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
- The only question is regarding Goats. I am inclined to say that they are effectively abstentions and/or discussions which aren't actual votes. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:05, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
- I would agree completely with that interpretation. Perhaps it would be best it the "nay" sections were removed. As you are the only editor with a "Nay" you might wish to make the change.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:53, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
- The '1 week ban' wins because it's cumulatively 7:8. To ban Arsehole is the absolute majority of the electorate, though there were differing opinions of how long. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:15, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
- I have now started a vote on an interaction ban between Pinkerite and Tetrapteryx at RationalWiki:Chicken coop#On Tetrapteryx. Bongolian (talk) 17:42, 18 September 2025 (UTC)