RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation/Archive73

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 26 February 2024. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: , (new)(back)

DaRealPrinceZuko[edit]

DaRealPrinceZuko created Simon Webb's RationalWiki article [1], I have since updated it but have left most of the "black history" section untouched. DaRealPrinceZuko doesn't cite any historians or peer-reviewed articles. He does cite the britannica.com but most of his other sources do not look that reliable. He heavily relies on an Afrocentrist YouTube account From Nothing as a source for much of his information on the article, he also admits to taking sources from this person's website. I have not personally read his website as this person is not an academic, historian or specialist. Another one of his sources which I have removed was a TikTok user Admire Kashiri. Both Admire Kashiri and From Nothing have made videos criticizing Simon Webb.

From Nothing is not an academic or qualified historian. As noted on the talk-page for Simon Webb this Afrocentrist YouTuber is completely unreliable. In one video he falsely claimed that modern vaccination was pioneered in Western Africa. There is a difference between variolation and vaccination, the former has been around since the 1500s in China but this YouTuber doesn't acknowledge this. In another video he confused a "Japanese" sculpture with a Chinese soldier from the Terracotta Army collection. He then compared the sculpture to an African one from a completely different time period to argue the African sculpture has "Asiatic features". Many of the comments in the feed for this video are from Afrocentrists claiming Asians were black. Here is an example of one of the comments "I knew Japanese were of African descent when I saw them dance in competitions. They hear music like we do. This is the level of delusion we are at. We are citing Afrocentrists. This sort of nonsense, is the same we see from pseudohistorians like Graham Hancock. We shouldn't be linking to an unreliable YouTube channel like this.

DaRealPrinceZuko (although he will deny it) is very likely to be From Nothing. Basically, this YouTuber has gotten into a slap fight with Simon Webb after Webb criticized his channel a few months ago and this was the same time period when the RationalWiki article was created. I am not defending Webb, he is on the opposite end of the extreme. My point is, we shouldn't be citing unreliable Afrocentrists either. I am not sure why we are linking to non-historians on YouTube or TikTok.

PrinceZuko obviously has strong opinions about this topic and is attacking me on the talk-page, "You are either being maliciously and willfully ignorant or you're lying by omission". The "black history" section added by DaRealPrinceZuko needs to be reviewed by a specialist, a better option might be to entirely remove it. I have removed some of these unreliable YouTube videos but some still remain. DaRealPrinceZuko seems to be involved in a personal feud with Webb and it spilled out onto this website. I am not convinced his editing on the website has been ethical. He cites unreliable sources, he resorts to personal attacks, he is probably citing himself as a source on the article. Lastly, he linked to this Reddit account as a source on RationalWiki [2]. Going through that account, this is probably the same person as well. The mods needs to review what is really going on here with this user. It looks like he is using this website to carry out his personal feud with Webb. I do not believe we should delete the article but I suggest this user's edits should be reverted on the article. Johns (talk) 05:27, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

YouTubers, even very good ones, are not reliable sources. They should never be cited as references for matters of historical fact. If what they see is true, then it shouldn't be hard to find more reliable sources that support it.
I have noticed how oddly defensive DaRealPrinceZuko is getting of From Nothing. But that in itself is not proof they are one and the same.
I also think it's unfair to come to conclusions about a YouTuber's beliefs based on what other people write in the comments section. Spud (talk) 07:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
I agree with Spud here. This is 2024, not 1964; there's enough reputable 'Black'/'African' historians about - and they should be able to find a decent ref or two to back up such claims without resorting to rando YT accounts. The only real caveat here is that as a rule, a lot of this stuff might be in books we can't really ref or be behind paywalls.
What's more, in the 'Black history' section there are some counter-points which I have issues with; such as the Rhodesia/Zimbabwe part and the colonialism/technology one - they fail to admit Webb does have some circumstantial evidence here, which the rebuttal does not really desire to admit [qv; Rhodesian 'brain drain' and 'capital flight' post-independence].
In short, yes it does need a re-write with better refs. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
"I have not personally read his website as this person is not an academic, historian or specialist." You're supposed to look for evidence before constructing a hypothesis, not vice versa. "Both Admire Kashiri and From Nothing have made videos criticizing Simon Webb." Can you show me videos from From Nothing criticizing Simon Webb? You removed his content from Simon Webb's page, because you misinterpreted his content. You ignored most of the counterevidence I provided against you which debunks your claims, but you continued insisting that he is Afrocentric. You kept claiming that because he doesn't directly cite his sources to his videos, he doesn't cite peer-reviewed literature and refused to review the list of sources he provided on his website, which contradicts your claim. You also misinterpreted his video detailing his opinions on African and Japanese cultures as a historical topic, even though the YouTuber literally clarified that his points are solely from his personal opinions and that he was just detailing striking similarities between African and Japanese people from an anthropological standpoint. This would be no different from me comparing Native Americans to Eurasian civilizations (i.e. Haidas to Vikings, Comanches to Mongols, Incas to Tibetans, etc.).
He stated that West Africans invented it independently from foreign influences, not that they did it first. He was making comparisons between the sculptures to highlight possible connections. None of the sources I cited were from Afrocentrists. How would From Nothing's claim of Africans independently inventing inoculation be any different to the concept of Cradles of Civilization [3] or the independent development of agriculture in different parts of the world [4]. The Chinese and Indian methods predated African methods. So what? This would not negate the fact that the western tradition derives from either the West African (via Onesimus [5]) or Ottoman methods.
I also reviewed the comment sections in the videos you provided and hardly any of them come from an Afrocentric perspective. In addition, you claim that the YouTuber does not criticize Afrocentrism as a whole after I showed you this video, which gives me the impression that you have no concept of what Afrocentrism actually means. You also criticized this video based on the title alone, rather than addressing the actual content of the video, which asserts that there was a time when East African migrants ruled parts of India.
"DaRealPrinceZuko (although he will deny it) is very likely to be From Nothing. Basically, this YouTuber has gotten into a slap fight with Simon Webb after Webb criticized his channel a few months ago and this was the same time period when the RationalWiki article was created." What is the correlation between me and From Nothing aside from our arguments? And no, I've never made any direct contact with Simon Webb; all I did was to provide counterevidence against his claims.
"PrinceZuko obviously has strong opinions about this topic and is attacking me on the talk-page, "You are either being maliciously and willfully ignorant or you're lying by omission". "He cites unreliable sources, he resorts to personal attacks, he is probably citing himself as a source on the article." You are the one ranting about the YouTuber and nutpicking his content to falsely paint him as something he is not. And again, what is the correlation? "Going through that account, this is probably the same person as well. The mods needs to review what is really going on here with this user. It looks like he is using this website to carry out his personal feud with Webb. I do not believe we should delete the article but I suggest this user's edits should be reverted on the article." I'd love for you to prove the connections, rather than just highlighting similar arguments. You can accuse me of being vitriolic and express your discontent all you want, but the evidence is pretty lopsided in my favor.
I also agree with Spud on his stance on citing YouTubers in general, so I suggest we just cite the sources from the YouTuber's website. DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 21:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Erm, no. I am going to fight this on one aspect alone. The person cited as a source is neither 'academic, historian or specialist' and therefore not worth citing as a ref. Now, while we are not WP we do have some standards. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Johns has not properly reviewed his content, so how can we come to the conclusion that he is neither 'academic, historian or specialist'? Again, I do agree that we shouldn't cite YouTubers in general. Can we just use the sources listed on this website for references? DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 21:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
I really care zero about this seemingly personal drama, my personal thoughts on this section though:
A) Based on a quick skim, it does seem to need some work on some sourcing (adjusting information if some of the current content is questionable)
B) That being said, at least some of the sources do seem to be okay. So on a whole, I would not support wholesale nuking of that section personally at this time, as JohnS seems to want to do.
Looking at History Debunked's Substack,[6] I do think that this guy is in well within mission, being a reasonably subscribed to YouTube (211K) and also clearly a flaming racist. Basically I imagine some of this can be resolved with a review. BobJohnson (talk) 00:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
BobJohnson, all of the references that DaRealPrinceZuko cites are taken directly from his own website [7]. This guy is not an academic or historian, he is an Afrocentrist conspiracy theorist. By his own admission he is not a qualified historian [8], he does not claim to have any credentials. As we have already established, he confused a famous Chinese sculpture with Japanese from a completely different time period and tried to pass it off to prove the Japanese were African. He goes mad when anyone brings up this mistake. I admire the fact he wants to call out Simon Webb's racism but at the end of the day this guy is no different, he wants to rob other cultures of their history. We have two biased pseudohistorians here twisting history for their own racial agenda. Both appear to be involved in online slapfight and that is why DaRealPrinceZuko created the article. If we want to cite history we would cite mainstream sources, why are we citing this guy's content again? I see you have just restored all the sources from this guys website and a number of his YouTube videos, which is exactly what he wants. Johns (talk) 00:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
I literally give zero fucks about that, merely the sources that were cited itself. You're trying to tell me that the New York Times, PBS, the Washington Post, Encyclopedia Britannica, and National Geographic are Afrocentric pseudohistory bullshit? No source is perfect, but the above are "reasonable", assuming the source was utilized correctly. I did check a couple, and they did seem to be used fine (I've only checked a few, though). I have not reviewed the whole section yet, I do suspect there are issues. The direct From Nothing Youtube video citations do exist and they absolutely can be safely discarded. At any rate, that's my opinion; I think there's enough worthwhile material in this section that a wholesale delete isn't warranted on "first impression". Other comments are of course welcome.
And, yes, I have reverted your attempt at blanking a section *until this edit war issue is resolved by the mob*. I would not mind further comments, if the consensus is to nuke (regardless of my opinion), we can nuke it. BobJohnson (talk) 00:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
From my perspective, PBS, Washington Post, New York Times are not reliable sources for historical facts. Newspapers are useful for obituaries or biographical data, not ancient historical information. If we want to be citing ancient historical facts then we would cite proper academic historical sources for this.
I have no issue with the Encyclopedia Britannica and National Geographic. If RationalWiki wants to cite all this guys stuff then go ahead but unfortunately it will back-fire. When Simon Webb and all his followers respond to the article they will just notice all the sources have been copied from the Afrocentrist FromNothing. It makes us look like idiots. We are not an Afrocentrist website. When I write an article I try and keep things accurate and use better sources. I have given my opinion to why I believe this content should be removed, as you say, other users can make up their mind about it and come to a consensus. Johns (talk) 01:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

"If RationalWiki wants to cite all this guys stuff then go ahead but unfortunately it will back-fire. When Simon Webb and all his followers respond to the article they will just notice all the sources have been copied from the Afrocentrist FromNothing. It makes us look like idiots." Yeah, I have my doubts on that. Also, your anecdotal evidence with the sources I cited from From Nothing's channel does not prove the connection, as it is completely nonsensical and none of it follows at all. It could also mean that I'm just a fan of his work. You need a lot more than that to prove my connection to the YouTuber. You've also ignored Spud's point: "I have noticed how oddly defensive DaRealPrinceZuko is getting of From Nothing. But that in itself is not proof they are one and the same." DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 03:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with BobJ on this; sourcing is the issue I have here, as well as my personal issue of trimming back a few of the more let's say 'out there' comments in the commentary [which I suspect is unsupported by any decent refs]. Personally, I have no objection with any refs that the YT'er in question used, as long as they pass quality standards and are not being used out of context.
Now, Johns has a point when they question the historical accuracy of some mainstream media outlets, esp if we are looking into 'op-ed' areas. WP, for example gets this nuance when talking about reliabilty of sources. However, the issue we have here is that RW - as far as I can tell - has an unofficial policy of using sources in which a layperson can easily check; so avoiding paywalled sites or print books with no open-source electronic version. Unfortunately, this does basically cut us off from most specialised historical journals etc - which means a mainstream media site might be the best source we can use for RW, even if it isn't the best source in existence. But I was under the impression that all sources were at least skim-read for quality/accuracy by someone who knew a bit about the topic(s) before inclusion. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
If it's unofficial policy, it's no policy. I don't recall any discussion on preferencing layperson-friendly sources, whatever they are. Bongolian (talk) 16:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Well, citing a journal which few has a subscription to or a thirty-year old book which the nearest copy is a university library you are not a member of is clearly 'unfriendly' because of the barriers for people to check it for accuracy. If nobody can check it, there's no barriers for simply making shit up or taking stuff way out of context [something I suspect this 'dissecting history' guy does in spades]. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
These are not always impenetrable barriers for the layperson. For example some authors make their articles or preprints available online for free. ResearchGate (https://www.researchgate.net/) is one centralized site for authors to do this. A source for tracking down book contents online is the media-scanned side of the Internet Archive (https://archive.org/ in the second search box from the top on their main page). Due to the lawsuit by a group publishers, not all the scanned books are available anymore, but a large number of them still are, either full content available for borrowing, or searchable by keyword. Interlibrary loan is still a thing that's available at many libraries in the US, UK, Australia, and probably elsewhere. Bongolian (talk) 18:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
It might not be an 'impenetrable barrier', but it's one with a high enough cost that it is effectively a de facto barrier, as how many people will bother doing an interlibrary loan just so they can fact-check a source? Look, are you gonna do this say, x10 for a RW article to check it when you're reviewing a new page? I can tell you this; I will not - my bandwidth is limited and it can't stretch far enough to make this happen. And I actually know how to do this. If it isn't a principle it should be; to use the most 'accessable' reliable sources in mainspace page-making so the barriers to cross-ref us is as low as possible. Though as I noted above, I think most folks do this already. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Abuse of sysop tools[edit]

DaRealPrinceZuko unilaterally blocked Johns over a silly edit war. This is a completely improper use of sysop tools. Don't do this again. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 23:36, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I'll stop. It wasn't just an edit war. He literally spread malicious bullshit about me to damage my credibility in response to me accurately calling him out for nutpicking and strawmaning the user. This is clearly not acceptable nor proportionate. DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 23:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Aren't you a Sysop John? Blocking a Sysop is more of a nuisance than an abuse. CorruptUser 06:11, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, that specific incident wasn't too big a deal, as Johns is a sysop who can remove the block and said block only blocked them from editing one page anyway. Still, DaRealPrinceZuko used that block as a weapon in an edit war, which is a no-no. As for DaRealPrinceZuko's other concerns, a dispute over sources isn't really a moderation issue, it's an issue that really should be contained on the talk page of the disputed article. Both of you are getting pretty fiery over this though, so it may be wise to step back and get the input of a neutral observer. Also, citing Britannica isn't really any better than citing Wikipedia, but that's a seperate issue here. Plutocow (talk) 07:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
That's true. I would also like to see a de-escalation here. Some of the citations deleted by Johns are reasonable to keep (e.g., Simon Webb's YouTube, PBS), others are not reasonable to keep (e.g., www.peruforless.com). Bongolian (talk) 07:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Johns nutpicks and strawmans other's content[edit]

Johns removed From Nothing's content from Simon Webb's page, because he misinterpreted his content as perpetuating an Afrocentric viewpoint. He ignored most of the counterevidence I provided against him which debunks his claims, but he continued insisting that he is Afrocentric. He keeps claiming that because he doesn't directly cite his sources to his videos, he doesn't cite peer-reviewed literature and refuses to review the list of sources he provided on his website, which contradicts his claim. He also misinterpreted his video detailing his opinions on African and Japanese cultures as a historical topic, even though the YouTuber literally clarified that his points are solely from his personal opinions and that he was just detailing striking similarities between African and Japanese people from an anthropological standpoint. This would be no different from me comparing Native Americans to Eurasian civilizations (i.e. Haidas to Vikings, Comanches to Mongols, Incas to Tibetans, etc.).

He also complained about the fact that the YouTuber stated that Africans invented inoculation and misinterpreted that as a claim that they did it first (even though the Chinese method predates that), even though he means that they developed it independently, while insisting that they did not pioneer inoculation and claiming that no academic historian would claim that. How would his claim of Africans independently inventing inoculation be any different to the concept of Cradles of Civilization [9] or the independent development of agriculture in different parts of the world [10]? The Chinese and Indian methods predated African methods. So what? This would not negate the fact that the western tradition derives from either the West African (via Onesimus [11]) or Ottoman methods.

He also interprets the comment sections in both videos as coming from an Afrocentric viewpoint, even though hardly any of them say anything Afrocentric. In addition, he claims that the YouTuber does not criticize Afrocentrism as a whole after I showed him this video, which gives me the impression that he has no concept of what Afrocentrism actually means. His video on African and Japanese cultures as well as the comments on his videos are completely irrelevant regardless, as they do not affect his credibility and the video was only detailing possible links between two cultures from an anthropological standpoint, rather than a historical one.

He also criticized this video based on the title alone, rather than addressing the actual content of the video, which asserts that there was a time when East African migrants ruled parts of India. He did not review the videos as they were. He filtered them to confirm his bias.

He then continuously accused me of being the owner of the YouTube channel by asserting that my sources come directly from the YouTuber's sources, which isn't evidence of anything, as I could also just be a fan of his work. In addition, he interpreted my rebuttals as "carrying out personal feuds against him", even though he glossed over most of the counterevidence against his claims to rationalize his opinions on the YouTuber. His entire perspective on the YouTuber's content is based on a complete Strawman relying on Nutpicking and insinuations. I've showed him multiple videos of the YouTuber explaining his overall agenda and him revealing that he gives balanced analyses on African history to counteract both Afrocentrism and Eurocentrism. These are obviously notions that are incredibly incompatible with anything resembling Afrocentrism.

I also do agree that YouTubers in general shouldn't be classified as reliable sources, so I think it's best that we use sources from this website, which he is so desperate to discredit.

All in all, Johns does exactly what he criticizes me and From Nothing of doing, including distorting, omitting and exaggerating facts. He claims that From Nothing engaged in a feud with Simon Webb and that the article was created around that time. His evidence? Literally nothing. The only thing he got right was the fact that Admire Kashiri uploaded TikTok videos critiquing Webb's videos, which is completely unrelated to From Nothing. I have never made any direct contact with Simon Webb; all I did was create an article about him to counteract his pseudoscientific claims, particularly regarding African history. Since he mistakenly identified me as From Nothing, he accused me of being an Afrocentric conspiracy theorist, even though he is a conspiracy theorist himself by perpetuating rumors about me, while relying on anecdotal evidence. Not only did he link me to From Nothing, but he also identified me as a random user on Reddit I previously cited on the article.

Johns, how would you feel if I identified you as BadEmpanada, who happens to be a vitriolic Tankie who perpetuates misinformation regarding communism and socialism?

Johns' rant: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Simon_Webb

My response to his rumors: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Johns#Stop_trying_to_defame_me DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 06:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@DaRealPrinceZuko I'd urge you to stop defending this one specific YouTuber. It's not worth it. You've already agreed with me that YouTubers should not be used as references in articles here. Please, just let it go. Spud (talk) 12:16, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Okay, but can you please tell him to stop spreading rumors about me? DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes, Johns should stop making accusations without better evidence. I would like to call attention to DaRealPrinceZuko's behavior on Wikipedia. In general, we do not make decisions about users based on behavior outside RationalWiki, however DaRealPrinceZuko's problematic behavior on WP overlaps with with what we've seen at RW.[12] DaRealPrinceZuko should be aware that we don't tolerate that type of behavior here either. Bongolian (talk) 17:51, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Can you please tell me what exactly you're accusing me of? I wasn't trying to be vitriolic or anything. Whatever it is, I'll stop. I've also noticed a spam account with the user name FromNothing. DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
On WP, you were warned, "However, please do not use unreliable sources such as blogs, wikis, personal websites, and websites and publications with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. …" That is similar to what you were warned about doing here. Bongolian (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Sorry. I saw other articles with YouTube videos used as references on RationalWiki, such as the White guilt article citing YouTuber Marina Watanabe. DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 18:51, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The citation in question was a direct quote which has been used in that article. It's also kinda pedestrian; basically 'don't wallow in guilt/sadness over it, focus on what stuff you can do to sort it out now'. But the truth is that article is a semi-stub and I suspect if/when it gets some attention to it said citation will die. I've removed similar 'low grade' content/sourcing in other mainspace pages in the overhauls I've done. In short; just because it was okay then, don't mean this is okay now. But WP has similar policies too, which have evolved over the years... KarmaPolice (talk) 16:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

This a troll or what?[edit]

Special:Contributions/FromNothing? Anyone care to chip in? I don't really give a fudge who feels offended by who, but we have to patrol and keep an eye on Recent Changes, so it would be nice if this could be resolved. If it's an impersonator troll then boot him. Regards - Rairyu75 (Talk) 18:14, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

He's impersonating me by pretending to be the original YouTuber and copying my edits. Will you grant me permission to block him? Other troll accounts have been leaving messages on my account about Webb's article. DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 19:18, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
As I said on the talkpage, leave them banned unless they can provide evidence of their identity. Their TPA is allowed, so they should be able to do this if they wish. Plutocow (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

LosCocinados[edit]

Unilaterally blocked Andrew5, which is basically an abuse of sysop rights. I know Andrew5 was a controversial user, to put it lightly, and they have a bad history in Wikipedia, but blocking them here would require community consensus, if such a thing would be even worth it given how infrequently they edit here nowadays. Plutocow (talk) 22:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Andrew5 LANCBed in January 2023 and hasn't edited since then, so it's unlikely he would contest that. Anyone who wants to call for a vote can do so, but it won't be me. Bongolian (talk) 22:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
He has shown up multiple times since then as a BoN, so there is that. Still, this kind of thing should be done with community consensus. Plutocow (talk) 22:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Here's Andrew5's BoN contributions if they are of interest. His last edit seems to have been in December 2023. Plutocow (talk) 22:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Given the evidence socking, I agree, it's better to have a vote. Bongolian (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Normally you have to wait 24 hours, but given that Andrew5 is unlikely to show up, is it fine to start a vote now? Plutocow (talk) 22:59, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
If there's no evidence of recent abusive behavior on RW, then what's the rush? Bongolian (talk) 23:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
The block reason given was: "(On a second thought, this guys a douche bag https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Andrew5)" Blocking someone for their actions on third-party sites is not what we generally do. We also don't have any policy against socking - only socking when you are banned, or using a sock to manipulate voting. So I'm not sure what Andrew would be being accused of here.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Since we're talking about abuse of sysop tools, I'm afraid that Lavalizard101 has also blocked at least a few of users that shouldn't be blocked: TheObserverOfTruth, TrumpMania and RationalWiki2024. Now, do I think that these three users were socks of trolls and vandals? Yes. But they should at least make one or two edits before getting blocked IMO. And please, Pluto, don't bring that sad episode when I did the same thing to you, this was many years ago and I've already apologized at least a couple of times. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 11:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Andrew5 is a complete twat. Frankly, i hope he doesn't come back, either as Andrew5, AndrewMobile5 or a BON. But he's done nothing since his LANCB that he could be blocked for. Blocking him here because of what he did on Wikipedia is bang out of order. Spud (talk) 14:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
I agree completely.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
I recommend the non-sexist "dipshit," for Andrew if you must perform your opinion of him. He has never written anything that I can recall that was remotely interesting. I can say that is annoying for readers caught unaware. But once you understand that, consider the definition of insanity. I have no objection to his presence otherwise. Ariel31459 (talk) 17:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Why the hell did LosCocinados bother banning them anyway? KarmaPolice (talk) 00:08, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Presumably due to them being a LTA on Wikipedia, given that they linked it. Plutocow (talk) 00:22, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Then LosCocinados made a mistake. They should be admonished and told to read our blocking procedures. I notice they have not commented here.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
LosCocinados was advised on that already by Rairyu75 after the block was removed (User talk:LosCocinados#Easy on the blocks there, cowboy.) Bongolian (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
I think LosCocinados had read it and responded in another way, self-desysopping yesterday with the comment: Ima just stick to translating. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 21:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Apparently the inciting incident was when LosCocinados reverted a troll, possibly someone who has gotten into a dispute with Andrew5 in the past, on Andrew5's talkpage. Since they self-desysopped, I see no need for further action on that account at the time. As for Lavalizard, GeeJayK if you want to start a case on them it would probably be better to start a new section. To be fair to them, "TrumpMania" is pretty borderline in terms of allowed usernames (I mean, we probably wouldn't allow "PutinMania") but the other two are pretty clearly unjustified. Plutocow (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ So, we're not going to address LosCocinados's obvious abuse of mod tools? Like sys-op revoke? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 11:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

They've acknowledged their mistake, that won't be necessary IMO. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 11:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Just archive the thing.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Vote on banning Andrew5[edit]

This vote has been closed. Please do not add, remove or change votes.
The result of this vote was: By a 10-1 vote, Andrew5 remains unbanned as long as he doesn't return to cause more trouble.

Yay[edit]

  1. A close one, but I'll vote ban for two main reasons. Number one, Andrew5 has supposedly scrambled the passwords to his accounts, so banning them would be just a formality. I don't even think he cares if they are banned at this point, so it's nothing against him. Secondly, this is going to attract drama, so I think it's best to nip it in the bud. DMorris is already trying to smear RationalWiki by pointing out that Andrew5 was (very briefly) a sysop here, and given that Andrew5 is becoming more notorious, this is likely to attract more bad-faith trolls (the other LTA, Mikemikev, has attracted bad-faith trolls like Viril.Feline.Wyyzrd). It'll probably save us a lot of trouble to take care of this situation now, and it's not like it will cause any collateral damage given that Andrew5 is never using those accounts again. Plutocow (talk) 02:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
    We've had worse bad actors on RW than Andrew5: DMorris himself is a prime example. I shall not name the others. So, DMorris citing Andrew5 to smear us on WP is preposterous given that most or all of the baddies have also had accounts on WP. Bongolian (talk) 03:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
    I guess the main takeaway should be, no matter how this vote goes, we should be wary of anyone who seems to only be here because of Andrew5 drama. It's a problem that's going to increase due to his newfound notoriety. Plutocow (talk) 03:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
    I should acknowledge that I am the Wikipedia editor that DMorris has accused of having a conflict of interest. Spud (talk) 14:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
    Why? Is he bored or something? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 22:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
    David Morris is banned here, so he has himself a conflict of interest regarding this issue. I assume people on COIN will acknowledge this and bin his comment. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 23:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
    It's pretty obvious that no action is going to be taken against me on Wikipedia for having a conflict of interest. As the first response to DMorris' COINing me pointed out, that noticeboard is meant to be used for people suspected of having a conflict of interests in their editing of Wikipedia articles. It doesn't apply to non-article spaces, like LTAs. The other two responses point out that DMorris is just acting out of hatred of RationalWiki. He's just making more of a tit of himself. Spud (talk) 14:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Nay[edit]

  1. Why bother? If he comes back and becomes a huge pest again, then maybe. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 22:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
  2. BON contributions fairly vanilla. They weren't banned, just quit. Except mildly annoying me over constant topics regarding gerrymandering in the Bar [which they eventually stopped doing], I bear them no ill-will. But that's historical and not a bookable offence either. KarmaPolice (talk) 00:08, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
  3. This is ridiculous. Andrew5 is like Ken, with some differences (both are attention whores, but one is a fundie with a gazillion socks while the other is a shitty centrist with one sock who runs like the wind, once someone calls him out (perfect example would be the last mod election where he voted & endorsed Bongolian despite never coming back). Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 00:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
  4. Insufficiently offensive as yet. Bongolian (talk) 02:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
  5. He's an annoying little shithead, but he hasn't done anything in a while to make a ban vote worth it. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 03:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
  6. I don't see any reason to ban him from RationalWiki if he's not trying to set it ablaze, but he's definitely not making himself likable. --Luigifan18 (talk) 03:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
  7. He evidently never crossed the ban-line when he was actually present and quite active. It seems absurd to bring an action now so long after his presence has wound down to almost nothing: especially so when nobody has presented any explicit evidence of rule-breaking here. I honestly feel that this whole vote is massively counter-productive and should never have even kicked-off.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
  8. I hope he doesn't come back because he was an annoying little turd. But prior to his LANCB, he did nothing on RW that would warrant a permaban. Spud (talk) 14:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
  9. Andrew was annoying. Being annoying isn't bannable. Not sure why were voting on this instead of dealing with the rights abuse of the person banning him. -- Techpriest (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
    I also think that is kind of weird.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
    Agree. Smells a bit like someone trying to drag us into WP drama. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
    If you want to start a vote on LosCocinados, you can. But since they self-desysopped, and this is a one-time offense as far as I can tell, I see no need for further action. Lavalizard is an entirely separate case. Plutocow (talk) 07:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
  10. At first, I was eager to ban Andrew. Other comments proved me wrong. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 23:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

  1. This is a simple yes/no vote for ban, as other sanctions would be meaningless with his LANCB. As for the case itself, I'm split. The pro-ban argument: Andrew5's debauchery on Wikipedia has gotten worse since his LANCB, with it escalating to him harassing people and getting an LTA (something that, of all RationalWikians, only Mikey was able to achieve as far as I'm aware). Leaving him unbanned would likely invite unwanted drama. Further, Andrew5's record on RW isn't exactly clean, with him abusing sysop tools and getting sysoprevoked and being a recurring nuisance on talk pages, with one incident resulting in a three-week ban. Banning someone to enforce their LANCB isn't something that's unprecedented here, as that happened to Oxyaena. The anti-ban argument: We rarely ban people for offsite behavior short of doxxing, and while there is an occasional exception like AAE, in that case lying about the extent of their involvement in Kiwi Farms could be considered an onsite offense. Further, Andrew5's appearances here have been infrequent and it's been a while since he's done something super disruptive here. Regardless, though, Andrew5 is playing a very dangerous game right now; if they harass a RW user as part of their crusade against Wikipedia, even if that's offsite I think it would be enough to ban. Plutocow (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
    Who is he harassing? Also, wasn't he banned on WP? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 00:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
    According to his LTA,Wikipedia "[Andrew5] target[s] people who report/block their sockpuppets or revert their edits by harassing them cross-wiki, spamming talk pages with personal attacks and threats, which, again, may be revdelled if necessary." Andrew5 is indeed banned from Wikipedia, but has become such a problem with his ban evasions there that he has become a LTA (putting him on the level of Mikemikev and Supreme Genghis Khan, among others). Plutocow (talk) 01:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
  2. I am reminded of the tv game shows where the competition involves a series of inane activities followed by the "tribe" getting together to vote the least popular member off of the island. I can see that most users here don't really want to play that game. Determinism is a tough thing to resist.UncleKrampus (talk) 14:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=RationalWiki_talk:All_things_in_moderation/Archive73&oldid=2629845"