RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation/Archive12

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 18 March 2019. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, (new)(back)

Mod identifiers in signature[edit]

I think we should make identifying mods easier. Also, is it a good idea to change username color in the recent changes to indicate mods and other users below sysop? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 20:19, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

This used to be done. See the oldest archive of this page and {{Moderator}}. NekoDysk 20:23, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't object to it, but I prefer to try to interact with fellow-Sysops as a Sysop primarily. Bongolian (talk) 20:29, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
True, I do wish there's a way to make it just a way to identify them and not have it seem like one has more "authority" than the other. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 20:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
The idea of adding a link to the list of moderators to the sidebar was mentioned before? How about doing that? Spud (talk) 02:50, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Let's try that. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 05:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm OK with that. Bongolian (talk) 18:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Also agreed. Maybe also a link to this page? Just so they can bring up an issue to all of us? RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I added "Mod noticeboard" to the sidebar (next to technical support) linking to this page, and added a list of mods to the top of this page. NekoDysk 11:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
@Dysklyver Thanks a lot! I think that's great! Spud (talk) 13:18, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Very well done indeed. RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Mods, keep a watch on this[edit]

@Bongolian @DuceMoosolini @RWRW @RoninMacbeth @Spud


--It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 02:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

...Grumbles about how we should have banned them earlier... NekoDysk 19:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Banning them for being nuisances is always the perfect solution. To the Coop we go then.--Don Juan (talk) 10:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
The conflict has appeared to fizzle out but I do suppose passion hurts for these two lovers. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 20:09, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Confused about appropriate etiquette here[edit]

I'm new here. I arrived at the Eric Turkheimer‎‎ page, which at the time seemed quite outrageous.

In reaction to my initial edit, Matty the Damned placed an unwelcome message on my talk page.

I ignored it, achieved consensus on the Eric Turkheimer page, and my original edits, more or less went into effect.

I think there is something dangerous going on here, typified by the Eric Turkheimer page before I edited, such that prominent scientists are being slandered as pseudo scientists based on their viewpoints (or worse, inaccurately supposed viewpoints). This is particularly true of individuals involved in Behavior Genetics.

After the Eric Turkheimer page was resolved, Ariel31459 changed my unwelcome to a welcome message. GrammarCommie is now editwaring on my own talk page with Ariel and myself over whether I should be welcome or unwelcome here. He has blocked me from editing my own talk page (even as he has engaged me in discussion on it).

I think this is inappropriate.

I'd like to know if I am welcome here. I believe in the scientific method. I believe that people who ignore scientific evidence (such as those who deny evolution, and those who call global warming a hoax) should be mocked. I thought that this is the site to do this on. If so, I think I belong here. But if the goal of this site is to push left wing ideologies, and attack prominent scientists who appear to take the scientific method seriously, then I'm obviously in the wrong place. I'll quickly make my exit.

I think that calling most of the prominent scientists in a particular field "pseudoscientists" because they have results that you don't agree with is harmful to both science and to this site. To call a well published scientist a pseudo scientist, there should be a scientific consensus that the individual is using fallacies or anti-scientific practices in his or her work. This is especially true for living and scientifically active individuals. The way to address such people, if they are wrong, is by publishing papers, not by calling them names.

Please let me know where and to what degree I am out of line. Thanks. Jsolinsky (talk) 03:13, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@Jsolinsky Standard protocol for edit wars is to lock the page in question. Further It is a BIG fucking No-no to edit other users' comments, just because you dislike them. You did the latter, and the former, and I am well within my rights to tell you off for doing so. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:19, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
You were edit warring on my own talk page over Ariel31459's decision to change my message from unwelcome to welcome. YOU edited Ariel31459's comment on MY talk page. Jsolinsky (talk) 03:25, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
More relevantly, you seem to consistently revert anything you don't like without contributing anything substantive to the conversation here. It looks to me like you are abusing this site for your own purposes. I am eager to hear from the rest of the community whether they agree with your behavior. If they do, I'll spend my time elsewhere. Jsolinsky (talk) 03:25, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Is it standard protocol for one of the participants in an edit war to change the page to the version he likes and then lock it himself without getting somebody impartial? Because that seems like a pretty clear abuse of power to me. Jsolinsky (talk) 03:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't care for User:Jsolinsky but a bloke is entitled to his talkpage. On that basis I've unprotected User talk:Jsolinsky. --MtDBogan 03:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
And Ariel was wrong to do what he did. You were both in the wrong, and I reverted the edits in question. If I began changing the content of your comments to suddenly be flowery praise of me, would that be the right thing to do? I think not. And I hold you to those same fucking standards and expect to be held to such in turn. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:36, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
He didn't change a comment. He changed the Welcome message from the unwelcome template to the welcome template. As I've said, if I am unwelcome, I will just leave. If I'm staying then the unwelcome message goes. I admit I probably wouldn't have felt strongly about this had Ariel31459 not made the change and you editwarred to change it back. But here we are. I'm inclined to just delete the (un)welcome message/comment altogether, but I'll wait some time to either hear back from MtD or get feedback from another user. Jsolinsky (talk) 04:23, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
@Matty the Damned Thank you for unblocking me MtD. Out of curiosity, is calling me a "bellend" and a "cunt" a standard RationalWiki expression of endearment? Or am I special? Maybe the Behavior Genetics folks are getting off lightly when they are called pseudoscientists on RationalWiki Jsolinsky (talk) 04:23, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
@Jsolinsky You weren't blocked you mendacious shit, your talkpage was protected. Two different things. Brother you are within a poofteenth of an inch of tasting the blunt end of the banhammer so you might want to make yourself scarce for the forseeable future. --MtDBogan 04:31, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
@Jsolinsky Did you read beyond the word unwelcome? And since you apparently read MtD's talkpage, did you read my own thoughts on the matter? Because that's what I take away from those messages, not a "with us or against us" attitude but a unfortunate impression. Perhaps that initial impression was genuine, and you should leave. Perhaps everyone got off to the wrong foot, as it were, in which case staying around might be the right call. I have no shagging clue, and refuse to make those decisions for anyone other than myself. Decide what you will, expand your horizons, or don't, any way you slice it it's your call. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 04:35, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
For clarity, I'm really not asking GrammarCommie or MtD whether I should stay here. You have been as unambiguous as you intended to be. I'm inquiring as to the preference of the broader community. Taking RW policy at face value, what I'm doing here is advancing its mission. — Unsigned, by: User:Jsolinsky / talk / contribs

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── And I'm sure the broader community thanks you for your service. --MtDBogan 04:53, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, @Ariel31459 was very, very wrong to have changed the template on @Jsolinsky's talk page from Unwelcome to Welcome. That most definitely does count as editing another user's comments and that is a huge no-no. If Ariel thought that a user who had initially been given an unwelcome deserved a welcome, he should have left the Unwelcome template at the top of the page and added his own message with the Welcome template at the top of it in a new section on the page. That's happened before. Furthermore, on RationalWiki, a user's talk page is not his or her castle. It belongs to the entire community, not just the user. Messages should never be removed unless they are obviously vile trolling (you'll recognize it when you see it). Personally, I prefer to have all comments left on my talk page, up to and including death threats. Under the circumstances, however, I think the best thing is to allow Jsolinsky's talk page to remain without either a Welcome or an Unwelcome message so that we can move on. And whether or not Jsolinsky will prove to be a valuable contributor very much remains to be seen. Spud (talk) 05:05, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
All principles which I have upheld. My only objection was User:Jsolinsky have his talk page protected so he couldn't edit it. A well meaning but entirely unproductive action. --MtDBogan 05:10, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Well, I probably would have done the same thing if I had been in GrammarCmmie's position. It looks like the protection was originally for 24 hours, right? Maybe a more symbolic protection time, say 30 minutes, would have been better to get across the message that you do not edit war and your talk page doesn't truly belong to you. Anyway, can we now agree that this storm in a teacup is over? Spud (talk) 05:27, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Totes. My position all along. Coop the cunt or leave him alone. --MtDBogan 05:30, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
There are still two issues:
1. There is still the question of what to do about all the Behavior Geneticists that are labeled pseudoscientists. Is there an existing community consensus document or discussion on when it is appropriate to call a prominent scientist a pseudoscientist? If not, is there a place where such discussions happen, other than individual pages? Jsolinsky (talk) 13:30, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
2. GrammarCommie objects to me going to a page. Leaving a comment in talk about a change I plan to make. And then making that change after a few days if I receive no comment. I don't see anything here that suggests that there is something wrong with this. If somebody disagrees with my edit, then I expect them to at least leave a comment in Talk about why they reverted me. And I expect the comment to have something to do with the actual content of the page and my edit. But GrammarCommie has been reverting me because he says I made the changes without consensus and not leaving any substantive reason for the reversion in talk. I'm not sure how to resolve this. See, for example, the Noah Carl page, and specifically the talk section around "More dishonesty from Carl" Jsolinsky (talk) 13:30, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
@Spud It was 9 hours if I recall correctly. @Jsolinsky You removed a large chunk of sourced content after a mere statement of disagreement. Imagine if we let people do that to all our articles, it would be a bloody fucking madness. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:39, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie @Spud @Jsolinsky @Matty the Damned This issue apparently hasn't died down, so I brought the Coop section I made, and then subsequently deleted, about it earlier back up. That would seem to be a more fitting place than this page. Ɖøn Ĵuan (talk) 13:49, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie @Spud Time stamp of the talk page comment in my Noah Carl example: 17:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC) Time stamp of the page change: 18:02, 15 December 2018‎ Sure looks like three days to me. Jsolinsky (talk) 14:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
GrammarCommie reverted reverted with this comment in the edit log and nothing in talk: "Per your single comment in talk. It's easy to have a consensus of one." Jsolinsky (talk) 14:25, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
@Jsolinsky, on this wiki, do not take no response to mean no opposition. And do not remove large sections of sourced text. Now, I suggest that you take that discussion back to the Noah Carl talk page. @Don Juan I was going to say there isn't any need for a Coop case yet. Mind you, if things carry on like this... Spud (talk) 14:34, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
@Spud This is considered to be a large section of sourced text? https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Noah_Carl&type=revision&diff=2022419&oldid=2019445 Jsolinsky (talk) 14:39, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
@Jsolinsky Yes. Spud (talk) 14:43, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@Spud It has occurred to me that the welcome message could be added in addition to the unwelcome message. So, we regard the unwelcome emblem to be no more than an individual opinion? I wasn't aware. Fine. I recommend discontinuing the practice. It has already been established that there is a dwindling interest in making edits to this wiki. I would rather see users arguing over bad edits, than a continued decline in the number of edits.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ariel31459 No, the Unwelcome template shouldn't really be just one editor's opinion. It should only be put on the talk pages of new users who are clearly going against the community standards. However, we all make mistakes. It is possible that someone could have been too harsh in putting the Unwelcome template on the page of a new user who's maybe been a bit of a pain but hasn't done anything seriously wrong. And we can but hope that new users might change their ways after getting that message. In those cases, it would be possible to give the Welcome message to someone who's already received the Unwelcome message before. Spud (talk) 04:09, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

The way I see things: This site has defamatory attacks against numerous well published scientists and their papers that support results that do not conform with the views of the left. (e.g. Richard Haier, Linda Gottfredson, basically all of behavior genetics, etc.). If those attacks were supported with specific dissections of fallacious arguments, it could still represent a positive contribution. But overwhelmingly the logic seems to be: "This person's research could be used to support results I disagree with", and worse: "This person has worked with somebody whose research could be used to support results I disagree with". Such fallacious arguments are anti-scientific, and undermine the good work this site has done on matters like evolution and climate change. If it is OK for RationalWiki to disregard an entire branch of science because of its implications, why can't a creationist do the same. I think the answer is clear: Rational inquiry requires that research and evidence always trump belief. It is never OK to disregard an entire branch of science. This is true even if the branch in question is ultimately proved wrong, as so many past branches have been.

Much of the argumentation seems to be: "These people are crypto racists, therefore nothing they say matters". But most of these individuals have explicitly declaimed racist and supremacist behaviors, and indeed have long records of behavior which make no sense if they actually held racist views. The study of intelligence, and its heritability or lack thereof is an obviously interesting topic. It hardly requires any racial animus to seek to study it. Even if they were racists (and surely some are), ad hominem is not a valid basis for declaring peer reviewed research to be invalid. The scientific method must prevail even when one side of an argument is represented by somebody truly reprehensible.

I initially thought that this wiki would be biased against the inclusion of defamatory statements against living people. It is clear at this point that this is not the case. Indeed the path to removing defamatory content without being accused of violating the rules of this wiki is shockingly effort intensive. Before any edit is made, I must contact the previous editors, have a discussion and achieve consensus. In the case of many of these pages, it is clear that the previous editors have extremely strong ideological biases. This is hardly surprising. Defamatory articles come from people with strong views against the defamed. It appears to me that the effect and likely intent of the policies (as enforced) is to retain defamatory content except in the most egregious cases, and to generally be biased against removing such content. It is my suspicion that even if I were to expend the effort needed, other means would be used to preserve the status quo. It does not make sense for me to make this effort, and indeed I would question the thought process of anyone who concluded otherwise. RW may be broken, but it doesn't want to be fixed. I am very pleased to have come to this realization before I spent any meaningful effort here. Jsolinsky (talk) 02:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

A small bit of housekeeping. While I think this site is unnecessarily defamatory to Noah Carl, I would like to make it clear that I am NOT including him, when I refer to "well published scientists". His page just happened to be the place where some of this came to a head. Jsolinsky (talk) 02:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC)