RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation/Archive77

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 30 June 2024. Please do not make edits to this page.


Hey, I just wanted to ask if I could appeal to overturn my topic ban and get back my mod powers. I know that I was sanctioned for a good reason, but it’s been a while and I really want to help with categories (I will be careful with making categories and consult other users first for a consensus though). As for the topic of regaining my sysop powers, I believe I can be trusted as I never abused them in the past, nor will I abuse them in the future. As previously I will use my powers responsibly. Rational Dude (talk) 06:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I think the easiest case here is for giving Rational Dude his mop back as to my knowledge, he never did anything that suggests that we can trust him with sysop tools. Regarding categories, I must admit I haven't checked his recent edit history a lot, but I haven't seen any edits being revert, so I assume they haven't been controversial (the quality of the edits is something I can't confirm without a deeper look, and I can't do it right now). Still, I'm a bit a fraid of totally removing the topic ban, so I'd like a more gradual approach. My proposal: give him the mop back and overturn the category top back except for the "fascism" and "fascists" categories, that are probably the most controversial and abused categories. In the future, if the user continues showing improvement, we can give him the right to add these categories too. If not... Well, then we'll have topic ban Dude again and I doubt we'll give him another chance to add categories. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 14:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
What GeeJayK said sounds reasonable. Spud (talk) 14:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
I agree with this too. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 17:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I don't have concerns about giving him his mop back, but I do have concerns about removing the category ban, I base this on reviewing the edit history of recently-added pages for living people:

  • Jarosław Kaczyński:[1] Rational Dude added draft categories to the page when it was in draftspace (not a problem per se in my view), then requested @Natsuki Marx to move the page to mainspace. Natsuki Marx did this but did not verify that the categories were substantiated by text and citations in the page, something that's easy to overlook. There were in fact several unsubstantiated categories that I later removed.
  • Enrique Peña Nieto:[2] The same things happened on this page.
  • Nayib Bukele:[3] And again.

Bongolian (talk) 17:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't have any disagreements with GeeJayK's proposal (and I'll make sure I verify that the categories in the draft categories template are backed up in the text of the page in future.) (っ◔◡◔)っ ♥ Natsuki Marx ♥ (talk) 19:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
So am I going to able to get my sysop/mop powers back? As for the fascists category, I will be much more careful using them in the future from now on, but there are some cases where it’s obvious it should be there (like bigoted far right demagogues such as Bjorn Hocke as an example, and pages on alt righters, some of them surprisingly missing the fascists category). Rational Dude (talk) 21:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm fine with removing sysoprevoke, but I think the category ban should stay in some form. While I'm fine with loosening it to only cover some of the more problematic categories (like the fascism/Nazi-related ones), I don't think Rational Dude has yet demonstrated that they're ready for a full removal of the topic ban. Plutocow (talk) 23:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Sure, I can wait. Just let me what categories I have to improve on before I’m ready to have my ban revoked. Rational Dude (talk) 23:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Many "alt righters" shouldn't be in Category:Fascists because they're already in Category:Neo-Nazis. There's no need to add a parent category and sub-category to the same article. This isn't a problem limited to contentious categories, eg many of the articles in Category:Physics are also in Category:Science. Christopher (talk) 23:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Well, a lot of those pages have both categories, and they had them long before I even made a ratwiki account. Rational Dude (talk) 00:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't think it's the case that you need to improve certain categories, it's that you're adding categories without adding supporting text and citations. This was how you got topic banned in the first place. It's fine not to have supporting text and citations for works in progress (draftspace, sandbox, and subpages of one's homepage) because the implication is that they will get text/citations added before going to mainspace. Bongolian (talk) 01:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Ok then, I’ll work on that. Rational Dude (talk) 02:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Also @Natsuki Marx, it seems that you have been doing a lot of moving articles from Draftspace to Mainspace of late. It would be nice you to read through them before doing so, as I'm noticing weirdly worded things in some of the articles:

  • Yoon Suk Yeol: "…are conscripted despite not being conscripted"[4]
  • Kyle Rittenhouse: "A vigilante yes man police officer wannabe who shot up a bunch of people in self-defence, eerily similar to how many police shooters themselves can get away with a crime."[5]

Bongolian (talk) 05:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Can do. (っ◔◡◔)っ ♥ Natsuki Marx ♥ (talk) 07:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
I’ll also use good sources when I make pages and categories, and I’ll have natsu check it first to see if it’s good for mainspace. Rational Dude (talk) 16:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)


This vote has been closed. Please do not add, remove or change votes.
The result of this vote was: Mop restored for Rational Dude, unopposed. Topic ban on categories remains.

Status quo[edit]


Restore mop, retain topic ban[edit]

  1. GeeJayK's initial response says it well. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 00:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
  2. Bongolian (talk) 00:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
  3. Plutocow (talk) 01:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
  4. Per GeeJayK's response. Sincerely, Postuhenin the neurodivergent doodlebug! (say hi! ^^) 02:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
  5. Seems okay.-- Techpriest (talk) 18:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
  6. Sounds about right. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 19:12, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
  7. (っ◔◡◔)っ ♥ Natsuki Marx ♥ (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  8. Like I said, it sounds reasonable to me. Spud (talk) 10:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  1. Signalling that I am aware, but are neither personally invested in this or have the bandwidth to really get to a conclusion. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Restore mop, remove topic ban[edit]


On UShistoryanalyzer and SEaffäreranalysator[edit]

The latter is so far not a disruptive user, but is probably a sock of a banned member (the former, a.k.a. LT). Mentioned recently in the Saloon Bar, where a BoN pointed out a clue (LT in hexadecimal as an edit summary) and SEaffäreranalysator reverted it twice (and another revert on his talk page). That's after I pointed out the name similarity, where SEaffäreranalysator is a grammatically incorrect translation of "Swedish business analyzer". I also remember there being a quickly-banned sock with a machine-translated "Chinese history analyzer" name earlier. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 22:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed the username thing for a while but there was never enough evidence to indict. However, the hexadecimal thing is convincing and something they definitely need to answer for. Plutocow (talk) 23:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
USHA before my time. Therefore, if anyone wants mods to 'make a move' against the alleged, I'm gonna want to see actual evidence. KarmaPolice (talk) 23:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
USHA is a sock of User:LT (which they admitted to here). Trying to sneak "LT" into one of their edit summaries is convincing evidence, especially as there is a sock account with the very same hexadecimal code. Plutocow (talk) 23:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
And if that's not enough, here's a sock with the same username pattern (bad translation of "German history analyzer") that made a couple of "constructive" edits before two years later vandalizing the same page as the hexadecimal sock. The account was made only a couple months after the "SEaffäreranalysator", which has a similar pattern of a bunch of edits in May 2022 before disappearing and returning 2024. In fact, both of these accounts weren't active at the same time, which is suspicious. There are undoubtably more accounts like this if you dig deep in the logs. Plutocow (talk) 23:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
It's very suspicious. Bongolian (talk) 01:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── This obnoxious bastard has been repeatedly edit warring on the Ron DeSantis article. (Diffs here, here, here, and here.) Carthage (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's worth voting on a permaban in this case of likely ban evasion. If anyone thinks otherwise, a vote can be called. Bongolian (talk) 18:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
I think the evidence is convincing enough for a perma on the basis of ban evasion, though if anyone disagrees I'm willing to dig through the logs some more. They haven't tried to defend themselves, which isn't a good sign for them (they can do so through their talkpage right now if they wish) Plutocow (talk) 18:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
I would have preferred to have made this official, but what the hey. Also not hugely happy about this discussion being archived so quick, though I will point out that the accused account deleted a comment in the Bar which in effect accused them of the above. So I am not going to make an issue of this. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
We don't need to vote on cases of ban evasion, LT's permaban was affirmed on three separate occasions. This ATIM was open for a good amount of time all things considered, other similar cases were archived much more quickly. Regardless, this is an archive; if anyone wants to continue this discussion it should be done elsewhere. Plutocow (talk) 17:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


Created the Generalrelative article, which is on the same person that User:CBH (most likely Emil Kirkegaard) doxed and also seems to mirror a lot of his arguments. Obvious sock? Plutocow (talk) 23:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

YellowCrown is definitely a sock of BlackHellebore, judging by the filter log. I deleted the page because number one this is not the kind of thing RationalWiki should be used for and number two it was promoting the narrative of CBH and the other related trolls. I'm going to ban these two accounts if I have no objections. Plutocow (talk) 00:13, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Looks like you've no need to ban YellowCrown. Did Lavalizard101 really ban an account just for tripping the filter once, despite having no ability to view the diff? Christopher (talk) 00:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
I just zapped the main account, the page was borderline doxxing anyway. I'll suppress everything eventually, but I'll give sysops a chance to look over the case first. Lavalizard should have a trouting, but that's a separate discussion. Plutocow (talk) 00:23, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
And now with the ban evasion, any remote semblance of good faith is now gone. Archiving. Plutocow (talk) 00:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
One last thing: Fvhfojdjtu, who was banned after trying to recreate the now-suppressed article at the center of the case, is just the word "Eugenicist" with all the letters moved down one, just as the banned user Kfotfo is a shifted "Jensen" (in reference to Arthur Jensen). So yeah, if you need one last piece of evidence to connect this effort to Kirkegaard and co., well here it is. Also, the article was indeed doxxing, containing the person's name, location, place of employment (even encouraging them to be fired from their job), and links to personal social media accounts, which alone is enough to justify a no-questions-asked-no-appeals-allowed permaban. Plutocow (talk) 03:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Repeated insertion of transphobic whitewashing into The Guardian article[edit]

@Gingercat has been repeatedly adding TERF whitewashing into our article on The Guardian since 2022. Carthage (talk) 09:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I am adding accurate well-sourced material to the section. The passage relating to Suzanne Moore's March 2020 article accusing her of threatening violence is inaccurate, for example. She concludes her article by writing: "We have the right to speak and organise without being told that speech is itself dangerous. You can tell me to 'die in a ditch, terf' all you like, as many have for years, but I self-identify as a woman who won't go down quietly", which does not match the current claim which asserts "and threatening violence against transgender people by saying people 'wouldn't go down quietly'." This version libels Suzanne Moore. Earlier this morning, I removed the heading "Transphobia" and substituted "Transgender issues", and corrected the misinterpretation of her article. That is being neutral, but has been reverted. As I said in an edit summary, on a website calling itself Rational Wiki one would expect it to follow biological science, in other words XX chromosomes = female and XY = male. The current version presents only one side of these issues at they affect The Guardian, uses a poor source in doing so, and ignores very many sources (in the United Kingdom) which accuse the newspaper group of being captured by trans rights activists. That looks like whitewashing to me. Gingercat (talk) 10:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
@Gingercat Rationalwiki is not neutral (although, as I've stated before a few times, it should present more than one side more often), but to my knowledge, saying that XX = woman and XY = man is a very fringe idea among specialists nowadays. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 10:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
I think we should apply a topic ban to you. A somebody. (talk) 20:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
We can present more than one side, sure, but let's not commit the balance fallacy here. Pretending that TERFs have equal weight to the reality-based community is a farce. Carthage (talk) 10:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Not sure if you were answering to me or to Ginger, but that was exactly my point. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 10:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
"Cisgender is not a universally accepted term." That's something you wrote in one of your summaries. That's a TERF talking point. Carthage (talk) 21:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
cisgender, cis
A person whose identity aligns with their sex observed at birth. From the Latin cis, meaning “on the same side”. Used when comparing the trans experience with that of the non-trans population, eg how trans men and cis men navigate the health service. Avoid talking about trans women v women, or trans men v men. As this is a relatively new term, talk to editors if you are planning to use it in furniture [The Guardian style guide]
Now, I looked at the last offending changes [as of the 25th June] and I will mildly agree with Carthage's allegation. Converting 'Transphobia' to 'trangender issues' is a kind of mild whitewashing, because the bowdlerisation is a form of minimisation - that simply some Guardian contributors disagree with each other on some aspects.
The trimming off of the rest of the para on Bindel leaves the wrong impression - that she had said once, twenty years ago and had since apologised for it [though a sharp eye will notice she only apologised 'for the language she used', not the meaning/intent behind those terms]. Oh no, she has long form of saying shit like this, and her own RW page highlights this.
The change of the Suzanne Moore quote is reasonable enough if it became more accurate. However, I argue that for accuray's sake the article then needs to spell out what 'these issues' she don't lie down on actually are.
RW doesn't ignore 'biological science', it merely doesn't accept that sex and gender are indivisible. At least to my knowledge.
Most of the people complaining that the Guardian 'had been captured by trans activists' are right-wing anti-trans papers like the Daily Mail, sometimes, written by the very TERFs who had quit from the Guardian! Example; https://www.telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2022/12/06/guardian-hiding-truth-trans/ You can read it, and you can see all the hallmarks of the anti-trans dogwhistles; scarequotes over "gender ideology", things being 'so-called', backing 'detransitioners', bitching about 'censorship' and claiming that the aspport for trans rights was 'virtue signalling'. I shall also point out that in the UK, every newspaper can and does have it's own political 'overton window' has no obligation to cater to all views and reserves the right to cut/edit/drop whoever they like. What's more, what happened on the whole is that the younger Guardian contributors pushed back against the TERFy 'old guard' and the latter ended up [on the whole] LANCB'ing in a very shitty mood and then whining about 'being cancelled'... to other media outlets.
In short, I will argue that the whole page does need a good looking at. There's bare URLs, 'cisgender' is back in the style guide, and more can be written about the internal tension within the paper re: trans rights etc. Here's a couple of links to perhaps add;
KarmaPolice (talk) 17:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
As an aside, I'm pretty sure the scientific consensus is that sex is much more complicated than the simple binary that "XX = female, XY = male". Carthage (talk) 17:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes, as the existence of Intersex people show. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Chromosome § History of discoveryWikipedia And chromosomes weren't discovered until the 1880s. So ironically, it's the TERFs who are going around changing definitions, not the "transgenderists". MayGodSaveUsAll (talk) 18:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
The problem I see is a lot of things are being conflated at once.
If one defines "sex" as "which gametes you have", this indeed is "fuzzily binary". Obviously there are exceptions such as DSD but this is not a typical condition. So I think a statement like "there are roughly two types of gametes" is okay as long as one acknowledges that this is *not* a *pure* binary separation.
There are also some biological differences between the sexes on the basis of hormones and chromosomes etc. (with even quite a bit more fuzziness here). And then, there is gender, which can be considered a social construct period, nothing more.
So the problem with a statement like "XX chromosomes = female and XY = male" is:
A) Equals means absolutely and always which is incorrect. Biology has a fair bit "fuzziness" to it.
B) Transgender is a gender anyways so is not subject to the above. (Though if I recall it's possible that some of the "biological fuzziness" in the biological sex characteristics might be responsible for some of what makes one transgender, eg transgender brains often share characteristics more similar to the sex they feel they are than what the gonads say.) BobJohnson (talk) 18:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Some of the edits to the article about The Guardian by Gingercat look to be appropriate (at least in principle — I would have stuck the thing about Bindel being biphobic into a note instead of removing it for instance), others no. Incidentally I've updated RW's page on cisgender. As for bio-sex, equating it to chromosomes is reductionist because these are only your genotype. XX/XY doesn't in itself tell phenotype, morphology, hormonal constitution, or indeed even gene expression (which is impacted by hormone replacement). As a matter of fact, most women have a small number of XY chromosomes and many men also have a small number of XX chromosomes. That's how messy this is. I've read papers about trans men (FTM) literally sprouting small amounts of what was apparently prostate tissue after hormone replacement. Sex appears more malleable than a lot of people know. Chillpilled (talk) 19:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Yay, an ATIM! Work to do!
Oh, this topic again. CorruptUser 06:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
It seems the dispute on the article has been resolved; unless someone is interested in pursuing sanctions (e.g. a topic ban) on Gingercat this case should be archived. Plutocow (talk) 23:52, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't think sanctions in this case wil be either applicable or wise. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
No support for sanctions after over 24 hours, so into the archives it goes. Plutocow (talk) 23:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)