RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation/Archive59

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 3 July 2022. Please do not make edits to this page.


This user has tried to add a claim that IQ is pseudoscience on the article for IQ. [1] This was left there for three whole days before an IP brought it up. When I noticed that, I reverted CBH's edit. [2] In the talk page discussion, Brain Galaxy brought up the fact that CBH is not a good faith editor and is trying to discredit RationalWiki. I looked into CBH's edits because of this, and I believe that Brain Galaxy has a point. For example, this edit [3] on the article Prejudice plus power, where CBH states "everyone knows it's impossible for POC to be racist" in the edit summary. Their edits on that article remained unchecked without any reverts since they were added on June 1, 2022. I also noticed that CBH tried to add the pseudoscience claim on IQ back in 2018. [4] Because of all that, I revoked CBH's autopatrol. After I responded to Brain Galaxy, they then gave further evidence that CBH is a bad faith editor, citing the edit conflict on hereditarianism, and CBH's article on Eric Turkheimer, which was deleted for libel and in which Turkheimer was falsely accused of being alt right and racist. They even said CBH might be a sockpuppet. I recommend reading Brain Galaxy's full comment: [5]

I would like a moderator to do a systematic review of every single one of CBH's edits as they have been overlooked and there's evidence to suggest that CBH is not contributing in good faith. LongStylus (talk) 00:32, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

A good chunk of serious anti-racist activists would be barred from editing on rationalwiki if we just assume people who accept "prejudice plus power" as a model for racism is a troll. The kid just doesn't understand the nuances of the issues related to IQ testing, and like their opinion isn't even that uncommon among skeptics entirely. Stephen Jay Gould would probably agree with alot of what CBH writes if he was alive today. A good half of the mismeasure of man is about the illegitimacy of IQ testing. Hereditarianism really poisons the well on this topic not to mention the links to IQ testing with the history of eugenics. I think alot of laypeople outside of psychology who have sympathies to anti-racism probably share similar views to CBH, and even though I don't agree with them I don't entirely blame them either. Have some empathy. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:57, 16 June 2022 (UTC).
I agree that we need to be understanding of the people from the humanities. Their hearts are in the right place. The science comes first however, and unfortunately, even Gould has his critics. Ariel31459 (talk) 02:17, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
@OnlySortaDumb Looking back on what you wrote here and in Talk:IQ as well as Talk:Hereditarianism, I feel that I was a bit too trigger-happy by accusing CBH of bad faith. I think that the sockpuppetry accusation is dubious after looking at Talk:Hereditarianism. The users that made those accusations are also suspicious. @CBH I apologize for accusing you of bad faith and sockpuppetry.
I'm not suggesting we should block CBH. I'm just concerned that their edits are remained unchecked. LongStylus (talk) 02:56, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
I'd agree we should probably make sure someone fact-checks their edits, because IQ's status as a scientific tool is not so obvious as to justify blatant accusations of pseudoscience at least not on any professional scientific merits. From my understanding it's a tool with understated limitations, that openly gets abused and misused by bigoted parties, but it's not on the consensus of cognitive scientists and psychologists a tool with zero legitimate scientific applications and we should definitely not commit to the stance that it is so pseudoscientific. -Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 03:42, 16 June 2022 (UTC).

@CBH should have been banned for blatant libel and misusing this wiki ages back. They created the Eric Turkheimer page which was deleted for defamation and had to be entirely rewritten. They also created the defamatory Kathryn_Paige_Harden deleted for "malicious content" (see talk page). The person who owns the account is a parody of a progressive. A real anti-racist wouldn't write these terrible attack pieces on Turkheimer/Harden who are both outspoken critics of race and intelligence pseudoscience. Brain Galaxy (talk) 04:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Do people here seriously believe CBH is genuine? Look at the nonsense they post:

Also, the "Association fallacy" is not a fallacy. Read this article. We all understand that Michael Woodley can't be forgiven for his work being used to justify the Buffalo shooting. No one seriously disputes that Woodley deserves to lose his position and possibly his PhD because he unintentionally supported this mass murder. But the shooter's manifesto cites "reputable" intelligence researchers such as Plomin and Bouchard even more prominently than it cites Woodley. This doesn't discredit only Woodley, it discredits the entire field of intelligence research. CBH (talk) 03:33, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

— Unsigned, by: Brain Galaxy / talk / contribs
I'd rather assume good faith at first. CBH made some... strange comments to say the least (see the one on Woodley and association fallacy, and the "everyone knows that POC cannot be racist" stuff), but I'm not sure they are trolling just yet. It's indeed possible that they are vandalising our articles in a very subitle way, and I agree with the removal of his autopatrol rights, but I wouldn't call for a ban so far. GeeJayK (talk) 14:09, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
@LongStylus. The moderators are not always competent to review any given specific topic, no matter how generally able they might be. Their job is better suited to resolving conflicts between sysops. The job of reviewing suspect material falls to the administrators, like yourself and OSD. I, for one, would much appreciate your attention on the group of articles involved. Don't be shy. Ariel31459 (talk) 14:27, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
@Ariel31459 Thanks for letting me know about that. I'll try to review some of CBH's edits. Also, I've noticed in Talk:Prejudice_plus_power#Endorsement_of_fringe_views that CBH wrote "This article heavily endorses the fringe, alt-right view that white people can be victims of racism." I'll assume good faith for now, but things are looking strange. LongStylus (talk) 19:03, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
And I've also revoked autopatrol again, seeing that GeeJayK agrees with it. LongStylus (talk) 19:05, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure if autopatrol being revoked is warranted or not, as to me this could seem like a content dispute instead of POV pushing/vandalism.--Andrew5 (talk) 21:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
@Andrew5 The thing is, we have to make sure the kinds of edits like the ones seen at IQ don't get overlooked. We can always give back the autopatrol rights once CBH has a solid reputation of good edits. LongStylus (talk) 03:48, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Oh ok. That makes sense.--Andrew5 (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

CBH: The Edits in Question[edit]

(edited; adding list of all CBH's additions)

And umm, that's basically it, barring some junk from 2018, or talk page stuff which is fine. So really, just the two on the list here that are as he edited. Cordon (talk) 19:25, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

That's exactly why I brought this up to ATIM in the first place. I'm going over the edits in that article (Prejudice plus power) right now and I've reverted some of CBH's edits. They've also deleted text for citing the Daily Mail, which is fair, so I left those in. Not all of the edits in Prejudice plus power are undone, so you might want to say "partially undone". LongStylus (talk) 19:22, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
I just changed Neoreactionary movement back to the way it was. I felt kind of iffy about the removals by CBH, but initially left it. Bongolian (talk) 23:58, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
CBH also made the really bad E.O. Wilson page, which was moved to draft then deleted. Bongolian (talk) 00:03, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

CBH is almost certainly a sockpuppet of Jean Lusaz[edit]

Identical style of writing, similar user page and adding same problematic content as Jean Lusaz. CBH also references their article creation(s) on their other account.

Lusaz created the Robert Plomin article that had to be entirely rewritten like the Eric Turkheimer article CBH created. Both articles are very similar.

They also created another article filled with dubious claims and ridiculous wording - Human brain size. This entire article needs to be rewritten.

The dates of account creations also show it is same person:

  • Jean Lusaz (last activity 18 November 2018)
  • CBH (account created 24 November 2018, less than 1 week after abandoning the Lusaz account)Brain Galaxy (talk) 00:51, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
The problem is that Jean Lusaz was not voted to be permabanned. If I'm getting this correctly, we only ban sockpuppets if they belong to a main account that's permabanned. Plus, I think sockpuppets are allowed if done in good faith, e.g. WP:CLEANSTARTWikipedia I'm not a mod, so it's probably best to wait for an expert opinion. LongStylus (talk) 02:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Doesn't seem like Jean Lusaz was around long enough to have developed a reputation they would need to run away from. (I'm not defending them, I'm just saying that they didn't get themselves unwelcomed.) They may have just lost their password.
I agree that the article on Human brain size is not good, since it just denigrates the claims in the notable claims section, rather than referencing refutations. (This is a problem throughout the article, not just in that section.) Vomitorium (talk) 04:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
That is correct, we don't ban socks for being socks unless they are of banned people. CBH's edits are frequently bad, but that's not enough for a ban. Someone would have to make a case that CBH wrote something libelous for a ban for us to consider a ban. Bongolian (talk) 04:33, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Maybe we should revoke CBHs Autopatrolled rights. Monet Ye 05:54, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
I've already done that. To be honest, I had a bit of a hard time deciding whether to do that or not, but I think it's for the best. LongStylus (talk) 06:01, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Unlike me, Brain Galaxy almost certainly is a person who was previously banned from RationalWiki and is evading their ban. Brain Galaxy's post above makes it very clear this is the same user as the banned user Concerned. Compare the post by Brain Galaxy above to these two posts by posts by Concerned: [6] [7] I previously mentioned this on the Hereditarianianism talk page, but nothing was done about it. Could someone please do something about it now? CBH (talk) 07:12, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

  • This edit by Brain Galaxy is definitely libelous, unless he can provide some documentation showing that Kirkegaard has in fact defended the Buffalo shooter's manifesto as "scientific", rather than simply hosting it due to his free-speech absolutist philosophy. None of the sources provided in Brain Galaxy's edit support his claim that Kirkegaard has done that. The cited posts by Kirkegaard at both Substack and Twitter both only argue that the manifesto should be available as part of the public record, and in the cited Tweet he said, "Hosting a document is not endorsement." CBH (talk) 11:35, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
^ I think this proves CBH is someone from OpenPsych, either Emil Kirkegaard or one of his friends parodying a progressive. CBH has misused this wiki to libel Eric Turkheimer (who OpenPsych target and harass) to the extent the page was entirely rewritten but now suddenly falsely complains of libel about Kirkegaard. In the tweet Kirkegaard made he described aspects of the manifesto as "scientific". I never said he called the entire manifesto science. Many people saw the tweet and it's probably on an archive somewhere. Notice how CBH's MO and attitude changes when someone posts something critical of Kirkegaard and they stop parodying a progressive to defend him. Since when has he been a "free speech absolutionist"? Only his friends claim that. As for the sockpuppetry claims, there were about half a dozen independent users saying CBH is Kirkegaard/someone from OpenPsych on those pages.Brain Galaxy (talk) 11:59, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
I found a copy of the tweet:


Latest mass shooter manifesto. Has the usual mix of science, half-science, pseudoscience, and very detailed information about weapons and gear.

What I wrote was accurate:

Kirkegaard (in a now deleted tweet) also defended sections of the manifesto describing them as scientific.

As I said, CBH's claim is false and who has a history of false libel claims? Brain Galaxy (talk) 12:12, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
LMFAO. If you think your saying that Kirkegaard "defended sections of the manifesto" is an accurate summary of him tweeting that it has "the usual mix of science, half-science, pseudoscience, and very detailed information about weapons and gear" you either are out of your mind, or have some personal vendetta against him, or both. Seeing as your edit also cited a tweet by Oliver Smith, it's your own mask that's slipping. CBH (talk) 12:41, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Another quote out of context. I said he defended sections of the manifesto "describing them as science" which is precisely what his tweet said. You're blatantly Kirkegaard or a meatpuppet of his. Hilarious how you went from posing as an extreme progressive to subtly attack Kirkegaard's critics such as Eric Turkheimer to now defending him. Yes, indeed the mask has slipped. Brain Galaxy (talk) 14:31, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Lusaz wasn't bannned, so simply being a sock isn't enough to ban CBH alone. Andrew5 (talk) 15:25, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes but someone who has created so many malicious article creations should be banned for vandalism. Here's how Lusaz described Robert Plomin (see page history):

Robert Plomin is an obese white nationalist who advocates biological determinism and eugenics. Although he believes non-whites to be genetically inferior, he is a practitioner of racial inexplicitness, the tactic of advancing racist policies without directly mentioning race.

Here's how CBH described Eric Turkheimer:

Eric Turkheimer is a pseudoscientist and biological determinist who thinks that IQ scores (and just about everything else) are determined primarily by genetics, much like Robert Plomin. He is an advocate of "painted-over" race science, who says that he personally disavows racialism, but who nonetheless promotes ideas that include racially biased assumptions or implications.

These are false defamatory claims. It's his sheer projection I libelled Kirkegaard. Note that Lusaz/CBH never criticises actual race and intelligence pseudoscientists - they attack and libel people like Plomin and Turkheimer who don't support the race and IQ stuff. Why not criticise actual hereditarians on race and IQ? This is more evidence CBH is someone from OpenPsych (their defence of Kirkegaard above though is proof alone.) Brain Galaxy (talk) 15:38, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

CBH's dubious claims about human brain size and scientific racism[edit]

See my discussion: Very dubious claims, the article writer has been trying to discredit this wiki on multiple accounts. Brain Galaxy (talk) 15:23, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Brian Galaxy isn't totally innocent either[edit]

His autopatrolled was revoked, and he had an edit rollbacked for apparent defamation. --Andrew5 (talk) 16:15, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

@CBH is right that Brain Galaxy is probably a sockpuppet of Concerned, who was permabanned. In fact, I've noticed that before CBH brought it up when looking at Talk:Hereditarianism, but I wasn't sure if I should speak up. It looks like this feud between CBH and Brain Galaxy has been going on for a while, so I think now might be a good time to address that. LongStylus (talk) 16:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
There was no defamation in what I wrote, see above. I provided Kirkegaard's actual deleted tweet:


Latest mass shooter manifesto. Has the usual mix of science, half-science, pseudoscience, and very detailed information about weapons and gear.

Kirkegaard was defending aspects or sections in the manifesto as being science, that's all I meant or was paraphrasing:

Kirkegaard (in a now deleted tweet) also defended sections of the manifesto describing them as scientific.

I never said he defended the whole manifesto but 'sections' of it he thought were science.

No reasonable reader would think this is defamatory. CBH is a highly deceptive and malicious troll. The actual defamation is what they posted on the Eric Turkheimer article which was removed. Brain Galaxy (talk) 16:26, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/ent3c/status/1072540046543257600 Eric Turkheimer describing CBH's edits to this wiki as "awful". These defamatory edits were later deleted but no one banned CBH and he's continued to do the same thing over and over. Notice the individuals CBH has targeted to smear on this wiki like Paige Harden/Eric Turkheimer/Robert Plomin are all staunch critics of OpenPsych/Kirkegaard (Turkheimer recently put out a paper criticising a paper Kirkegaard co-authored). I couldn't care less what happens to my account, I started this user to complain about CBH's edits on hereditarianism which were reverted. When will mods here wake up and realise CBH is a Kirkegaard sock or meatpuppet? Brain Galaxy (talk) 16:46, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Brain Galaxy has LANCBed, and I have restored autopatrolled for Brain Galaxy after a discussion of the edit on User talk:Brain Galaxy. I think this is now settled. Bongolian (talk) 18:51, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Brain Galaxy brought up legitimate issues with CBH, and I think CBH's behavior, including the responses they gave in this thread, seem suspicious. But the best thing we can do is to assume good faith with CBH for now, leave CBH without autopatrol rights, and be more vigilant of their edits. LongStylus (talk) 19:26, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
And also this comment left on Brain Galaxy's talk page right after they LANCBed is very suspicious: [8] LongStylus (talk) 19:38, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
I had nothing to do with that comment. Judging from the writing style, it looks like it probably was Mikemikev. CBH (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Archiving this; Brain Galaxy needs no further attention if they're the sock I assume they are. -- Techpriest (talk) 20:36, 17 June 2022 (UTC)


People have asked him dozens of times to use the preview button, with no success. Can a mod please do something? It's really annoying to see him flooding the recent changes page with 50 edits. GeeJayK (talk) 16:26, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

That page is a train wreck. It should stick to missionality and kept in draftspace till then. Bongolian (talk) 17:23, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
For Goat's sake! If you make an ATIM thread about someone, let them know on their talk page. I've already done that, but PLEASE remember to do it next time. LongStylus (talk) 17:24, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
You're right. I'm sorry. For the record, I wasn't talking about the Amber vs Depp page only, but pretty much every edit by Neiltyson1fan ever. GeeJayK (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I only edit like one day every two weeks so it's hard to imagine this is actually a problem . My edits are throughout the day, for which a preview button would not solve. But largely idgaf about this atim. As far as that article, it was substantially worse before I edited it, with over half the page on Johnny's personal life. Additionally almost every article I've contributed to that made it to mainspace retained the majority of my contributions, since 2018. Geejay has a motive for introducing ATIMs on every time I write on something controversial, given myself and Oxyeana once tried to ban him for being a neoliberal, and one we thought was associated with a South American sock puppet. That's all I have to say, bastaNeiltyson1fan (talk) 18:28, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't making any claims about who made it a train wreck, just my observation about it's current state. Bongolian (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
@Neiltyson1fan This is the first time I ever open an ATIM case against you, and didn't even mention the appaling content of that page, Bongolian did, what the fuck. I don't consider myself a neoliberal, but I'm glad you could at least admit you were trying to ban me for ideological reasons. GeeJayK (talk) 19:36, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
One of the great things about wikis, is that if you disagree about an article, you can contribute to it, or vote for it's deletion, rather than haze long-term contributors to the wiki. As far as who started this ATIM, the OP says GeeJay. The reason for the ban Oxy and I made years ago was due to us thinking you were associated with a South American sockpuppet. And yes you are a neoliberal as you argued for monetarism on the MMT page. Just a cursory look at your edits show that among your last few edits was an attempt to defend neoliberalism on it's repsective page [9] Neiltyson1fan (talk) 19:39, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Honestly, I think there is nothing to be done here. Gee, it does sound like you are still sore about the attempt to ban you. And, Neiltyson1fan, we are expected to tolerate ideological differences here, within reason. You can continue this on the Neoliberalism talk page, if necessary.Ariel31459 (talk) 02:05, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
@Ariel31459 I'm not sore at all, I even talked to Neiltyson1fan on discord after that incident and supported him to some extent on the incel discussion. Don't use the balance fallacy on this one, all I'm asking is for him to use the preview button more often. GeeJayK (talk) 11:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Threw him into the vandal bin. This is what it's for people. -- Techpriest (talk) 16:14, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
@GeeJayK I'm sorry to have given that impression. I just didn't think the issue was as acute in moderator's minds as it clearly is. I stand corrected.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
TBH, it's not that acute. I just opened RC and saw Neiltyson1fan clogging up a single page with 50+ edits. For plain moderating reasons that is just not really useful. It's not that much, the vandal bin just limits him to one edit every 30 minutes. Basically, designed for a situation like this. I just hope it means he starts bundling his edits together into one big edit instead of clogging up Recent Changes. -- Techpriest (talk) 16:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
The edits in question that I was "vandal binned" for were accepted edits on neoliberalism, with around 6k added bytes with citations, more than probably any other page today. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 16:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
One method of moderation is what is called "positive reinforcement", an example of that would be something like Ariel did on my talk page, or like I did with the writer I disagreed with on another article earlier [Hey :) thanks for editing RationalWiki, we (the moderators) appreciate your bytes added today to neoliberalism, because that article asked for an update. We (the moderators) hope you contribute more to that page. We read your comments yesterday and noticed you were diagnosed with OCD. I'm sorry about that, how about if you are able to be more organized in your valued contributions to that page, you can accept this tireless worker award. No worries though, we can still see the rest of Saloon Bar on recentchanges when you contribute to 1-2 pages] rather than [Focus on most controversial article he contributed to], [recruit people with grudges against him to a moderator board], [call the most accepted bytes in a day vandalism], [power trip], [threaten on User_Talk], [lie that the edits obfuscate any active mainspace activity]
Neiltyson1fan (talk) 17:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Is the vandal bin really called for? Some questions for Neiltyson1fan:
  1. Are you making an honest effort to use the preview button?
  2. Do you regularly correct your own mistakes when you do not?
  3. Can the mistakes be at least partly ascribed to a technology issue that you have to rely on (e.g. phone editing)?
Bongolian (talk) 17:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
I use it, but I'm known around wikis for editing this way. I also edit this way on facebook, and every other platform. It partially got worse when I bought a laptop where the power would go out about every hour randomly. Because Mediawiki doesn't have a draft feature, when the laptop would shut off, my day long effort to create an article would be lost. I mention this on my talk page, but it was a while ago. The edits come pretty continuously until all known mistakes found are fixed. I've contributed to and created wikis which were entirely built collaboratively using this frenetic pattern of editing. (eg wikiheaven, Tome etc) With the other writers doing the same. It sometimes became a pain when going through history to dig up an old sentence lost by mistake if more than 3 editors were contributing at a time, and admittedly it is not the most professional way to edit, and is an odd way to edit. As far as the "clogging up" accusation, I really do not think that it "clogs up" recentchanges in any harmful way, and that this is not a valid argument. It does make history messy on pages with more than 1 editor in a day, but that is not the intended purpose. If someone wanted, for example, to revert all changes I made to neoliberalism, it would take only about 2 seconds to revert to it, there is no difficulty in finding the last non-me revision. One final point is that I edited this way for almost two years here, until around maybe 2020? it suddenly became a problem because of a few edit wars unrelated to the speed of editing (content wars that have mostly or entirely resolved). Neiltyson1fan (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
No offense but this does not particularly charm me. If you have OCD I can sympathize with that (do note that I was not aware of this, nor does it really matter in this instance), but I must say that I find it rich demanding that people kiss the floor you walk on for your edits. Sorry, not sorry, but I'm not gonna do that. I will also reiterate what I told you on your talkpage; the vandal bin is not for vandals, it's meant to temper a particular case of bad behavior (it is named this way because back in ye olden days, most vandals would get bored if you vandal binned them, but it hasn't been used that way in a long time) which you are participating in. Also, please indent your messages properly and don't use templates that break text flow, it's quite annoying to read them otherwise. -- Techpriest (talk) 18:25, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
I have to go grocery shopping, I'm not responding to techpriests rudeness or attempts to make this about "behaviour", they've been nothing but unwilling to engage in good faith after calling them a bad moderator on Discord two years ago. (I didn't even know inactive editors could be mods so long)
If moderators agree on limiting the speed of my edits, it would be appreciated if someone could copy the code for the vandal bin and name it something else for not using preview like "batch mode" or something. And leaving something called 'vandal bin' for actual vandals. If they are not good edits please revert them so I can add it to one of my wikis. But for now calling this (;edit) here vandalism or bad behaviour is indeed mean, dishonest, and also feels needlessly insulting. Thank you. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 18:39, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Dude, I don't even remember you calling me a bad moderator. -- Techpriest (talk) 20:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
This user seems to have a bad habit of accusing others of holding grudges based on tiny incidents that none of them could possibly remember. Mad over being called a bad mod two years ago? Seriously? Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 01:04, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
No actions were taken, this ATIM as of now is about whether [accepted edits constitute vandalism. I've been told vandalism doesn't mean vandalism and people seem eager to misrepresent the fact that at least one user agreed this ATIM was started based on GeeJay's grudge against me. Please revert the edits or rename the edit filter or make up minds as to whether i can edit RW normally. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 09:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
I would also like to add that bots are commonly used on Mediawiki sites to fix x or y things on many pages at once. This is done on Wikipedia and most actually active wikis regularly. That action would actually "clog up" recentchanges for those who don't know how to use recentchanges. As in make it totally unreadable for people who don't know how to use it. No one in the history of (active) wikis that I know of has used the status of recentchanges to punish accepted edits, including frenetic or enthusiastic editing or bot editing. Please stop lying about the "clogging up" on recentchanges. That's what the ATIM was started about, and it's a lie. I'm sure mods would be happy to keep this ATIM open for 2 weeks, and not actually do anything except allow as much drama to fill the ATIM as possible. I'm not interested in that. For now I will be leaving until or if the uncompetitively elected popcorn crowd on a zombie wiki becomes more mature, or respects it's writers. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 10:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
You are missing that bot edits are hidden from recent changes by default. Actually, users on RW can sometimes request or simply be given the option of marking their edits bot edits for a time, to avoid clogging up recent changes when repetitive stuff is done. But that's usually not done for edits to content that others may want to review and could disagree with. But if you could "go bot" prior to each edit spree, and then after unbotting yourself, do something to notify others that changes were made, such as leaving a little note on the talk page, that could at least technically be an alternative solution. But then you'd need to be disciplined about doing that right, and would need to be trusted by those who can grant it with an option which would make reviewing your edits more difficult if misused. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 13:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
My edits added at most 3-5 lines to recentchanges on an inactive day (that is, lines bunched up at the top for short periods of time, not total pages edited) and therefore did not contribute to obscuring changes on recentchanges. And especially not in a way that deserves an ATIM as Ariel said and Bongo was sympathetic to. The suggestion that it did is a lie, and anyone making that claim would be lying or uninformed. The only way to make small meaningless ATIMs relevant is to leave them open until they haze an editor that size or amount of drama makes the ATIM seem relevant for the frivalous filer. Again I'm not interested in that or in responses which only address splitting hairs over side-arguments or goads. The ATIM is not about technicalities, but about whether recentchanges were clogged up. And they were not. So please either revert my edits or don't call the most accepted bytes in a day vandalism, no one does that. Thanks, bye until either of those things are done. It's juvenile moderation from a neoliberal non-moderator and an inactive-contributor middle-manager, which at the end only discourages active editing. Thank you. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 13:39, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm sorta inclined to side with Neiltyson1fan here. If he was previously too dumb or too lazy to use preview I would guess that he has now learned that people think it's important. looking at his user page I see that he was only reminded of the importance of this for the first time in late 2019. So I would say let him out of the VB for now.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
While he should learn to use the preview button, I am of the opinion vandalbinning is too early now. Andrew5 (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Wow, really?[edit]

Modding someone for not using preview? Annoying maybe but easily ignored. Jesus... Acei9 00:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

What he said. Scream!! (talk) 06:22, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm with Ace on this one. Spud (talk) 11:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. --Andrew5 (talk) 13:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Just archive this--2friedeggs (talk) 16:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
@2friedeggs If we archive this he remains vandal binned. If we want to remove him, then this needs to stay up. --Andrew5 (talk) 16:55, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Why was he vandal Binned in the first place? If i'm not given a good reason for this I'm removing him from it if you/someone else doesn't do it first.--2friedeggs (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
According to Techpriest, the vandal bin is meant for people who clog up Recent Changes and don't use preview and make 50 edits at once.--Andrew5 (talk) 17:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Should be renamed to batch mode if it's that important to this one mod. I see almost everyone here is on my side which is nice. @Spud if ur able to take me out of vandalbin or rename it to something without the word vandal that'd be cool 18:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC) — Unsigned, by: Neiltyson1fan / talk / contribs
I think the problem with binning in this case is it's all or nothing. Maybe restricting edits to once every five minutes may be appropriate, but once every thirty minutes is clearly overblown. I know that Bulbapedia has a usergroup called "force preview" that is used to make people use the preview button, maybe we can implement something like that. Plutocow (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Yea I agree with most people the vandalbinning of myself is overblown. I took a closer look at the vandalbin logs and it's pretty much exclusively used for vandals and edit wars, not like when Peterburg did 12 edits today to Vietnam. Also the code for vandalbin appears serverside, which means no mod here is going to adjust it. They have to go through Trent who goes through a Wikipedia employee to fix things on their server last time. Clearly not feasible. If @Spud wants to take me out of vandalbin based on most people here saying it's overblown and too early, then that'd be nice. Otherwise there's nothing else to do. 19:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC) — Unsigned, by: Neiltyson1fan / talk / contribs
@2friedeggs I explained it on his talkpage, but tldr/saving you navigation: He basically flooded Recent Changes with a bunch of tiny edits to one page. The vandal bin limits edits to once every 30 minutes. For me, putting him in the bin was with the obvious intent to get Neiltyson1fan to use the preview button more instead of flooding RC. -- Techpriest (talk) 19:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
For reference to the consensus of the ATIM, which agrees with me that the vandalbin was unwarranted, the edits in question and texted I added is here, which was 6000 bytes added and accepted, with around 15 additional citations (not including repeated citations). As far as I know, that was the most accepted bytes that day. I've said earlier that punishing the most-text-accepted editor in a day is not a great look for the mod that did so, and I'm not really interested in why anymore, as they've been rude a few times while trying to guess, while at the same time also misleading people about what vandalbin is typically used for on RW (they said it's "not for vandals", which the vandalbin logs wholly disprove). If the techpriest mod continues to mislead people about the edits I made, by leaving out how much it improved the page, feel free to check them out here. I pinged Spud if that mod wishes to follow the consensus in my favor here, and I don't think they've read it yet. Otherwise that's about it. There seems to sometimes, possibly, be issues with tildas while on vandal so appending my username. Peace -Neiltyson1fan Neiltyson1fan (talk) 20:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────It was entirely reasonable for tech to put him temporarily in the bin. Don't think he needs to be there anymore. Wouldn't hurt if Neiltyson1fan said "oops, my bad, will try to use the preview button". Curious if it is possible for Neiltyson1fan to concede anything. ShabiDOO 20:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
I think vandal binning of Neiltyson1fan by Techpriest as a temporary measure is reasonable ("vandal binning and temp blocking are also viable solutions at sysop discretion"). My reading of RationalWiki:Community Standards#Blocking and vandalbinning does not indicate that Neiltyson1fan's behavior falls into the rules for a permanent (or long-term) binning (lack of "spamming, trolling, and vandalism"). Hence, I have removed Neiltyson1fan from the bin. Bongolian (talk) 01:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, this makes it easier to edit. For reference, User:Peterburg 's (who is not me) 24, short successive changes to Vatican City this morning has not sparked any uprise despite it being at the top of RC almost this entire morning. I do not consider that "clogging up anything", despite him having a history of many changes at once. And it appears no one else does either. The bytes changed per edit are way less than what I was doing. Someone mentioned earlier a renamed copy of vandalbrake for people not using preview, (with 30 minutes decreased to 5 minutes) if it truly is something people actually care about, which it appears no one materially does, including myself. At the same time I'd be happy to develop a copy of Vandalbrake to deal with enthusiastic edits on a small wiki (odd goal) if someone can give me NX's source code for it, which appears to only reside on the RW server, so that everyone not just myself would be held to the same standards if it's actually a problem. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 13:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Ok I found the extension Bulbapedia uses, https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:ForcePreview. ForcePreview. It works with the copy of Mediawiki this wiki uses. I would recommend it and also be willing to be put in the ForcePreview group if the wiki here actually has an intention to hold everyone to the same standard, such as User:Peterburg this morning. (It takes like 5 seconds to install a mediawiki extension, by contrast this ATIM has taken days) Neiltyson1fan (talk) 13:50, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
I just asked Trent about extensions installation outside Tim, I don't see anything else this ATIM could do and am fine with it being archived. (this wiki could also use the MobileFrontend extension) Bongo took me out of vandal, so that's it Neiltyson1fan (talk) 14:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Whatever the ultimate outcome of this, it would be a good idea if you (Neiltyson1fan) were to commit to using preview before editing. I would be interested to read your response.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Force preview would be a useful extension. Anyway, no major objections if it's going to be lifted. If someone could detail on how we could make a dedicated group for forcepreview to be enabled (I don't think it has to be active for every anonymous user, which is the inverse of how the extension seems to be configured), I could message David to see if we could get it installed. -- Techpriest (talk) 17:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Force preview sounds like a terrible and obnoxious thing to have to deal with. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 23:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Bob the outcome occurred four times,
  1. when Ariel dismissed the ATIM as a personal grudge against me from Geejay
  2. the consensus from most people commenting is that this ATIM was uneccessary
  3. when spud said the ATIM was uneccessary
  4. when Bongo took me off vandal.

There is absolutely no reason for this ATIM to still be open. If people want to reprimand other authors doing the same as me, such as Peterburg this morning and don't know if RW has a tech team, they can play with this javascript here or get RW a basic tech team because punishing enthusiastic editing made no sense to anyone except like 3 people and 95% of the people agreed to take me off vandal, which has already occurred. Here's javascript which the extension uses rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=User:Neiltyson1fan/ForcePreview.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript Neiltyson1fan (talk) 18:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Any further stuff about forcedpreview should be handled by a tech team, to this extent this is actually an issue. Most people in this ATIM have already stated this ATIM was dumb and unecessary. Enthusiastic editing without preview involves more users than just myself: such as this example today, to the extent this is actually a problem, which I don't think, but a small number of people do.


Neiltyson1fan (talk) 18:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

If anyone wants to propose force preview, it can be discussed at RW:TS, I'm archiving this ATIM as it appears to serve little prupose at this point. Andrew5 (talk) 01:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC)


This is being discussed at User talk:Shabidoo, and think I'd bring it up here. Ever since our last ATIM, Machina has continued to clog up RW:SB with solipsism. This is counterpreductive and long lasting. Please see RationalWiki:Saloon_bar/Archive415#To_the_last_point_on_my_previous_thread, RationalWiki:Saloon_bar/Archive414#How_can_you_know_what.27s_behind_you_exists.3F, RationalWiki:Saloon_bar/Archive407#When_is_.22close_minded.22_a_valid_remark_to_make.3F (not collapsed), RationalWiki:Saloon_bar/Archive403#Does_consciousness_.22make.22_reality.3F. I think it's time it gets discussed again. --Andrew5 (talk) 23:02, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

@Andrew5 If you are making an ATIM thread about a user, it's good to let the user know about it. I've already done it, but make sure to do that next time. LongStylus (talk) 21:05, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Machina's got a very bad habit of removing the collapse box around his bar poots.cosmikdebris talk stalk 23:13, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
@LongStylus Sorry; normally I remember but I guess not this time. --Andrew5 (talk) 00:35, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Nothing has been discussed nor has any vote been proposed. Why is there even a block vote? ShabiDOO 12:41, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
I have no idea. I'll ping @Monet, who added the vote, who does this a lot. Andrew5 (talk) 12:47, 19 June 2022 (UTC)


Machina suffers from serious mental health issues (note the many suicide hinting posts at the beginning of his tenure here) which pervades every post. While rationalwiki tries to be inclusive and many members are caring and empathetic and would like to help, this is NOT the forum for providing mental health support beyond the most basic of support/motivation (we do not have the skills for this). I do not for a second believe it is healthy for machina to use the saloon as a forum to perpetuate his obsessions or mental-health issues nor for us to enable it. It is not healthy for many users to read and deal with relentless posts on existential angst and repetitive pointlessly-dark and gloomy philosophical posts. Not when there are like, a billion more interesting philosophical topics that could be discussed. While I know a few users do reply sometimes, I honestly believe this is just enabling behaviour. I honestly do not say this out of spite (yes I know it is ridiculous machina has trashed the subject I studied yet endlessly posts about it), it is simply not good for Machina to post this shit and not constructive for most users here either. Especially when his reponses are ALWAYS to ignore what everyone says and post the same nonsense a week or two later. ShabiDOO 12:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

If it is a compulsion, it is indeed enabling behavior, but it is possible he does not have any resources or support in real life. If it is outright delusion, I truly have no clue what we should do.--2friedeggs (talk) 13:09, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
He has access to other resources and refuses to engage with them, and in any case ignores everything we say (sometimes in a beligerant and even insulting way.) It is far more complex than a compulsion. It is not reasonable to expect users to continue engaging with it and not healthy for anyone (Machina included). ShabiDOO 13:26, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
I've seen this before, topic ban him and he'll just find another quandary to blabbler about. I'd support blocking him for three days every time he removes the collapse template. GeeJayK (talk) 14:33, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
By "this" do you mean the same guy or another guy looking for other things?--2friedeggs (talk) 14:37, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Others with similar obsessions and habits as Machina. GeeJayK (talk) 14:40, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
I think collapse the solipsistic post, then block 3 days is reasonable. Bongolian (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Maybe ban him from posting his stuff on the Saloon Bar? Enabling mental illness is not a good idea but admittedly it doesn't sit well casting him out in general. Maybe find some way to make it so he can only post about his solipsism obsession on the talk page and deal with behavior when it happens.--2friedeggs (talk) 22:27, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I'd like to note that we can now block people from specific pages, so if we want him removed from the Bar, this is entirely an option. -- Techpriest (talk) 16:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Partial blocks are a thing now? --Andrew5 (talk) 17:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
I just did a block test on you @Andrew5, and yup that does seem to be the case. LongStylus (talk) 18:13, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Two actually, for good measure. LongStylus (talk) 18:19, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
So I assume that explains this, then.--Andrew5 (talk) 21:26, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Yup! I just thought it would be a fun way to demonstrate partial blocks for you. LongStylus (talk) 21:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The fact that there's a template specifically for this user should be proof positive that enough is enough. Just look at what happened to the last user who had his own template, we all know what way this is going; just do it and get it done with. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:44, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

So are you saying we should escalate this to the Chicken coop? --Andrew5 (talk) 13:57, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
No Andrew. Coop is overkill. ShabiDOO 21:50, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
There seems to be a forming consensus for action here, are we going to take any or not? --Andrew5 (talk) 01:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
The mods already decided that blocking Machina for 3 days whenever he pulls his bullshit is reasonable. That's all we needed. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 20:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes. We don't have to adjudicate like the Ents. Ariel31459 (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Frankly, this should have been archived after Bongolian weighed in. We have our solution. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 20:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Alrighty then. Archived this will be. --Andrew5 (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

let them eat cake[edit]

Not worth cooping. Axe them off this wiki. It's overdue. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 01:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

The 24 hour rule still applies to an ATIM vote. --Andrew5 (talk) 01:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
If it's a slow crushing of a skull then so be it. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 01:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
I do agree its time to ban LTEC. --Andrew5 (talk) 01:21, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
I think we should put up a big fat notice on the top of the page saying "Please notify the user(s) being reported on their talk page(s) after you make a thread about them." I've already notified LTEC of this thread, but please remember to do that next time. LongStylus (talk) 01:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The edit summary for this pile of crap justifies banning this individual for harassment and threats (emphasis mine):

If RW don't make this change to the article before midnight tonight, they are complicit in TERFism and should be boycotted, cancelled and all contributors names and home addresses published online.

cosmikdebris talk stalk 03:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's a dox threat but more of this user trying to larp as the "triggered" leftist. Doesn't matter, better safe than sorry; they should've been sniped for transphobic comments sooner. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 06:04, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, RW users have been doxxed in the past, or at least people have attempted to do so. So that is a completely unacceptable comment, even as a joke. LongStylus (talk) 06:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Yep. Though this rotten edit[10] a while ago already crossed a line anyway. We now have just another reason to put an torpedo through this person's boat. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 06:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
It looks like Plutocow Cosmikdebris already blocked LTEC indefinitely. I don't have enough empathy to unblock them, so I'll just leave it at that. Perhaps we just need a vote to confirm the indef block. LongStylus (talk) 06:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Ban for dox threatening is fine by me. Bongolian (talk) 06:32, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
It was cosmik that banned, not Plutocow, btw. We should not entertain blatant trolls in the wiki no matter how long we've tolerated them in the past. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 06:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, I got the name wrong. LTEC still has talk page access, so I guess after the vote, that'll be revoked. LongStylus (talk) 06:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Having a user blocked, but with TPA enabled during a ban vote has happened before, RationalWiki_talk:All_things_in_moderation/Archive45#ADefenceOfChristiany. Yes, a successful permaban vote involves TPA being revoked. --Andrew5 (talk) 12:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── It appears GC has revoked TPA. Do we call it ends here? --Andrew5 (talk) 14:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, we don't need more deliberation on handling trolls who vandalize and disrupt wikis. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 18:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)