RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation/Archive78

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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

Ages...[edit]

If this isn't supposed to be here, sorry.

So, I was looking at 2020 U.S. presidential election and noticed out of the corner of my eye - 'Joe Biden, Age: 81'. Issue is, he was not 81 at the time of election [or nomination]. I think we should stop using the 'Age template' on these articles - reasoning, it's confusing [someone could read this and think he was 81 in 2020, making him 85 now].

Solution; we manually put in the age on dated event pages like this, possibly also adding 'Born, XXXX' allowing folks to make the mental maths on how old now. Or XXXX-XXXX if they've died since. In a way, this protects in advance if somone wanted to re-do the older election pages in the same style [otherwise the 1992 election shall feature a race between one 100-year old and one 77-year old. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree. It can also also be written as something like "X was age Y in year Z", where Z is the year relevant to the article. Bongolian (talk) 18:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't understand indulging the bigots flogging Biden's age issue. One can be experiencing cognitive decline at any age, e.g., through cognitive dissonance, sleep deprivation, nutritive deficiencies, etc. If one wants to remind the reader of Biden's age, parenthetically note his birth date:(b. 11/20/1942). "(1942-)" already appears in the Main article, right after "Genocide Joe," which is a real highlight of the article. UncleKrampus (talk) 19:30, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't understand why you're simping so hard for a gerontocratic war criminal. It's also kind of gaslighting to just downplay Biden's real decline as just "the usual effects of aging." In fact, one neurologist has diagnosed Biden with Parkinson's. This is not normal aging. Carthage (talk) 19:34, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
If it's driving you crazy, I can see why you think it's gaslighting. What I don't understand is why you think this age issue is all that important. The great unwashed think Biden is too old to serve. Fair enough. State his age and be done with it. The idea that Biden is a war criminal is terminally extremist. No competent historian believes that horseshit. Are you simping for crackpots like Cornel West perhaps? A great reference for any wiki, I suppose. If you want to fight about this, come to my talk page. The moderators don't deserve any more of this.UncleKrampus (talk) 20:03, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
You say that "moderators don't deserve any more of this" when you were the one who threw shade in the first place. Carthage (talk) 20:04, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Personal attacks and abuse of sysop abilities[edit]

In a discussion at the Saloon bar (Is Wikipedia Politically Biased), I chimed in, and I was immediately met with disagreement and criticism (totally fine), along with personal attacks (not fine), collapsing and removal of my comments (also not fine), and eventually a completely out of line block. FWIW, I wouldn't care much about the personal attacks if my comments weren't removed and if I wasn't blocked.

The following editors made personal attacks (mainly calling me a troll, which I am not):

And BobJohnson also blocked me. Way out of line, and given that he was involved in the discussion, this was nothing short of an abuse of sysop abilities.

I'm not asking for anyone to be punished or anything. I'm just hoping someone can please remind everyone to not call someone a troll just because they say something you disagree with. And if someone else could please uncollapse the discussion and restore my comment that BobJohnson removed, that would be cool. Thanks. (Also sorry that posting this to the coop was the wrong place.) Brokenglass (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

A) I blocked you for removing the troll collapse *twice* (added by two different accounts I might add). Do not do that.
B) If four people in a thread think you are a troll, you might, in fact, actually be one. Your concern trolling in this thread also is noted. BobJohnson (talk) 22:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
I'll admit, by responses were a bit more terse on the personal side than they realistically should/could have been but I stand by everything else by me. I actually went to quite a bit of effort doing historical Google searches and searching WP fossil records, and to be honest I was a bit pissed off because I didn't find anything. The thing which put my back up was the fact that I could see other users offering alternative explanations for perceived bias [and so did I] but the accuser simply wasn't having any of it. All they wanted to do was continue to flog their dead one-trick-pony despite the fact several others were saying 'it's dead, Jim'.
Now, I personally didn't do either the troll-collapse or the scrubbed comment, but I didn't lift a finger to revert either [suppose you could say I did the 'shrug of agreement']. Didn't even know about no ban until now. KarmaPolice (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
BTW a low-activity user that all of a sudden became active, and immediately runs to the Chicken Coop after getting a small block after a round of trolling -- that raises eyebrows on my own. I get flashbacks of certain socks of a banned user from that one. You say you aren't a troll, well, that's hardly a way to disprove it. BobJohnson (talk) 22:54, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
If it walks like a duck... Carthage (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
If you're not going to push a case against anyone, there's no point in leaving this open. Motion to swiftly archive, unless of course you want us to look at your attempts at trolling. Plutocow (talk) 23:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Archive. This is stupid. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 23:50, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Agree, archive. Claims are not substantiated by the evidence (comments were not deleted, just obscured; being called a concern troll is not a personal attack when it's true). Bongolian (talk) 00:31, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Overturning category/topic ban[edit]

I’d like to request overturning my sanction, it’s been nearly a year since I was sanctioned, and I have improved greatly in regards to adding categories when necessary (I can send proof via draft categories I added with sources). Rational Dude (talk) 03:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

You could start by giving a few links to draftspace pages that you've worked on. Bongolian (talk) 20:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Sure, here’s one. I also added a reference to a sentence for Charles Manson (he’s missing a lot of citations on there). Rational Dude (talk) 21:06, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
I also removed the fascists category from a couple of drafts, like for Roseanne (since they lacked references and their labeling didn’t make sense anyway). Rational Dude (talk) 02:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't think the Jacobin citation is best source on Subianto, particularly since Jacobin is described by us as propaganda. For the fascism category, I think that there are two ways that a page would qualify, either self-admitted or definitionally fitting one of the three definitions on our fascism page. Since the page does not go into a definitional qualification, I think that this Intercept article[1] (rather than the one that's there now,[2] which is sort of secondary and not used in reference to fascism) would be a better source for Subianto's admission on fascism, where Allan Nairn (a respected journalist) interviewed and quoted Subianto. This is another source from Nair's website.[3] Bongolian (talk) 05:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Jacobin is rated as 'High' on factual reporting. Sometimes, 'propaganda' can simply be 'reporting stories which wouldn't be covered otherwise'; something which I note in the UK is sometimes filled by the communist Morning Star [who must not be trusted ever in foreign affairs coverage]. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
I think there are problems with citing RW as an authority here, because of the loose editing standards we employ and the variable quality of our articles. Also, keep in mind that The Times can be considered a propaganda outlet of the state department, but it's still considered a reliable source. Carthage (talk) 16:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
I sorta agree on that. 'Propaganda' is a loaded term, after all. While I would argue that while Jacobin has 'an agenda' and 'has a bias' [but then again, every outlet does!] it is not a 'propaganda outlet' in the respect, say Russia Today is. I personally try to follow WP's judgements on sourcing [which I shall point out green-ticks Jacobin] but will cut a bit of slack when it comes to less-covered topics or decently-written op-ed pieces [including the occasional blog].
Speaking of which, not only is Jacobin 'good enough for WP' but I shall also point out that the article writer personally [Michael G Vann] is a specialist in the region, including Indonesia. Coupled with the usual Anglosphere myopia and lack of really decent English-language reliable/impartial outfits in the region [The Straits Times and New Straits Times are known to 'bend' under govt pressure] there is a decent chance you're looking at the best opinion-piece on Subianto outside of niche, paywalled academic papers. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Well, how am I supposed to know which source is safe for ratwiki and which isn’t? All sources we use have bias to some degree. So it’s probably going to be impossible to find a source that we can universally agree on is best. I prefer using sources that are reliable on the topic for whichever subject we have a page on. Rational Dude (talk) 00:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I wasn't exactly trying to say that Jacobin was a bad source in this case, just that Nairn's own transcript on his website, which gives more context, is a better source. The word 'propaganda' is right on the first sentence of our page and appears no where else on the page. Perhaps it should be removed or clarified elsewhere on the page? Bongolian (talk) 01:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Jacobin is no more propaganda IMHO than the National Review is IMHO; both I see as extremely biased and opinionated sources, but neither have *direct* ties to a political party that I am aware of (even though the National Review heavily favors conservatism and Jacobin clearly favors socialism / "hard left"). Sometimes you get fuzzy cases; Fox News is one of those which is not full-on propaganda in the style of RT, but displays many characteristics and evidence of being a propaganda arm of the GOP, and even the other WikiWikipedia notes that as such. Jacobin is IMHO not even close to being a similar case based on the evidence I know of (same with NR); unless we can source some details proving otherwise, we probably can remove the "propaganda" description from the Jacobin article, methinks. BobJohnson (talk) 02:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
What transcript and who is Nairn? KarmaPolice (talk) 01:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Allan NairnWikipedia is a journalist who did some brave reportage from East Timor during the war. He was imprisoned in Indonesia for it at one point. The transcript is the 3rd linked citation above. Bongolian (talk) 02:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
What definition of propaganda are we using? This seems to be a very arbitrary category here. Clearly, if we mean an outlet that pushes a specific narrative that benefits specific interests, then The Times fits that bill clearly with its pushing of narratives promoted by the US state department. Do we mean outlets with provable ties to established authorities? We can call The Post the propaganda arm of Jeff Bezos, then. I doubt many people here would like that however, befitting this vibes-based analysis y'all are doing. Carthage (talk) 04:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
The other Wiki provides a definition.Wikipedia It's admittedly fuzzy to distinguish between "the persuasive op-ed" and propaganda (the distinction between straight news and propaganda OTOH is pretty clear). I do like the NATO definition in the article ("information, ideas, doctrines, or special appeals disseminated to influence the opinion, emotions, attitudes, or behaviour of any specified group in order to benefit the sponsor, either directly or indirectly"). Generally speaking, I think some form of "manipulation of the truth" also has to be involved.
To me, what makes Fox News propaganda and the WaPo / NY Times "not quite as much" is:
A) There is a more direct link between politics and media at Fox News. I certainly am not aware of cases similar to the case at the other sources where Republicans groveled at the feet of Tucker Carlson, to give one example. Rupert Murdoch is way more "hands on" with his media than Bezos, at least as far as I know.
B) Even the "news" division of Fox News is under pressure to align with the GOP, in a way that I'm not aware of for Wapo / NY Times. In fact, arguably the later two are more guilty of the opposite; those two papers of late have been infected by balance fallacy problems (False balance.)Wikipedia
That being said, since this is "fuzzy", it's certainly possible that Wapo / NYT have done some "propaganda" things from time to time. I just don't think simply "having an opinion" qualifies as propaganda... which is why I don't consider Jacobian or NR as such. To me, there has to be some stronger institutional ties. BobJohnson (talk) 13:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I removed 'propaganda' from the Jacobin page. Can we move on to the question of the category ban on Rational Dude? Bongolian (talk) 20:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes please, that’s why I made this thread in the first place. Rational Dude (talk) 18:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
I have no clue what you people are talking about. Can someone just start a vote? Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 20:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
May I? I have sysop status, and I believe I can vote as well. Rational Dude (talk) 21:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Rational Dude: I don't see why not. DuceMoosolini: The topic ban on categories was because Rational Dude was frequently adding categories to pages with no supporting text. The original discussion and vote was here: RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation/Archive68. Bongolian (talk) 00:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
How do I start a vote? Rational Dude (talk) 02:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Trying to start a vote but I don’t know how to add it. Rational Dude (talk) 19:23, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

It's just text:

Vote[edit]

Restore category editing privileges for Rational Dude[edit]
This vote has been closed. Please do not add, remove or change votes.
The result of this vote was: Topic ban overturned by a unanimous (5-0) vote.
  1. Thanks Rational Dude (talk) 19:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
  2. Sure. I won't vote to restore if they get taken away again though (っ◔◡◔)っ ♥ Natsuki Marx ♥ (talk) 13:28, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
  3. Sure. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 14:41, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
  4. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 17:44, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
  5. Bongolian (talk) 18:06, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Status quo[edit]
Goat[edit]
  1. Why is this in the Talk section? A somebody. (talk) 21:28, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
  2. Meh. KarmaPolice (talk) 22:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Close the vote[edit]

Seems like enough time has passed with no votes to close this. Could a mod do it? Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 03:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)


Suicide references (again)[edit]

@Impiricism posted on his user page what seems to be a lame joke explaining why he hasn't "offed" himself yet.[4] Unfortunately, the last time I tried to bring this discussion, it was archived with the rest of the Luigifan's shitstorm. I'd like to request for a mod to remove the content from Impiricism's userpage and, if possible, I'd like to discuss how should we proceed when a user making self-harm/suicide threats. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 11:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted his user page to an earlier version and protected it so that only mods can edit it for the next 2 weeks. Hopefully, by then the problem will be sorted out. And yes, let's discuss this issue further. Spud (talk) 11:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Fair enough. Can someone start off by a) outlining the present policy [if there is one] and b) the justifications of it? KarmaPolice (talk) 15:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
A lame joke? I thought it was amusing... though I generally am into dark humor, and I know others may not be. If jokes related to suicide specifically are prohibited on RW, then I won't make any. As an aside, I do feel like having such (non-targeted) jokes helps to normalize conversation around the topic. Impiricism (talk) 17:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
So... it's been a couple of weeks. Are any and all suicide jokes against RationalWiki's policies? Impiricism (talk) 00:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't think there is currently any policy with regard to suicide unless it falls within incivility (threats or harassment). Bongolian (talk) 01:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
…Seriously, though, why the heck has it taken this long to come up again? I thought we were trying to decide a policy about that, and were getting pretty close to a consensus. --Luigifan18 (talk) 17:42, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Someone should suggest a policy or policies that can be voted on and included in RationalWiki:Community Standards. Bongolian (talk) 21:04, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Clarifying the proper use of ref notes[edit]

I still think we should do more to clarify when ref notes should and should not be used and establish some firmer "do"s and "don't"s on Help:References, so that nobody gets in trouble like I did. I think I tried to do something about that shortly before the three-month block, wasn't fully happy with it, tried to call attention to it for advice and correction, and… got summarily ignored. (But seriously, we need to take a closer look at that page.) --Luigifan18 (talk) 17:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

That page says the following concerning reference notes:

Incidentally, while ref notes can be useful for including supplementary information that might be a bit too long-winded or obscure for the main paragraphs they're attached to (namely by splitting said supplementary information off into separate text-boxes that readers can view at their own discretion), they should still follow similar standards to the pagespace they're included in. For mainspace in particular, that means that huge, rambling walls of text, unsubstantiated allegations, off-topic digressions, and half-assed attempts at humor are bad. We may be jocular and rather informal (particularly in comparison to Wikipedia), but we do have standards and we expect our editors to abide by them.

What about this is unclear to you? I think it does a fine job stating RW's guidance on this topic. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 21:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
…Yeah, that looks like the version I typed up. Honestly, I was just going off what you guys were saying in the lead-up to the three-month block, and I was wondering if there was anything you might want to add or take out. --Luigifan18 (talk) 21:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Just because you willfully ignore the guidelines in question doesn't mean they're hard to understand. They are quite clear on what not to do. Carthage (talk) 16:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Again, that's the guidelines after I amended them based on your feedback about my poor usage of ref notes. I want to know if I did a good job anything important was missed or if anything got overstated and/or worded improperly. --Luigifan18 (talk) 16:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Gingercat accused of transphobic whitewashing again[edit]

An earlier ATIM regarding this topic in June resulted in mutual agreement on the disputed page in question, and no punishment (RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation/Archive77#Repeated insertion of transphobic whitewashing into The Guardian article). @Gingercat has been accused again of transphobic whitewashing, and it has been suggested that a topic ban would be appropriate (User talk:Carthage#Whitewashing again). Bongolian (talk) 20:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Probably nil since I was the one that suggested the topic ban, but... yeah, I'd support it. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 20:52, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
I looked at the edit in question and what I saw was a request for evidence to back up certain allegations. Then again, that could be concern trolling (and even if it isn't, it could be naivety or some extremely odd blend of skepticism, pseudoskepticism, and credulity), so I'll take your word for it for now. --Luigifan18 (talk) 20:58, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
This was a case of politically-motivated white-washing as I explain here. At least with The Guardian case one could argue that there's some academic fuzziness over definitions of sex and gender. But Gingercat scrubbed the word "fascist" and mention of Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull's endorsement of the National FrontWikipedia from her article. The endorsement is public record. The NF being a fascist party is supported by the first sentence of its Wikipedia article. I also support a topic ban. Burnt Toast (talk) 21:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
The NF still exists? Learn something new every day! KarmaPolice (talk)
I support a topic ban. Carthage (talk) 21:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
[scrubbed former comment due to me being an idiot]. It's interesting - not outright whitewashing, more trying to throw on a lighter shade of grey. I am not sure it warrants any bans yet [much more subtle than previous, lack of knowledge on issue] but I do think it needs watching. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Okay, the case against Gingercat is a bit stronger than it first appears. Not only was the previous Guardian case and Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull case, but also Graham Linehan. I didn't search every single one of the pages they've touched, but the others ones so far look legit. But doesn't the cat have anything to day in their defence? KarmaPolice (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
graham linehan stuff that removed seems pretty innocuous to me. it left all relevent information that was in there before made the language used less lurid. id have no problem with the less lurid version. id also take issue with keen-minshull's supposed endorsement of the national front. ive not doubt shes a terrible person and has some right wing nationalist leanings, and may actually be a fan of the national front, but i do not believe that is tweet is an endorsement of the national front. aside from it would be endorsing an organisation that is effectively dead having dispersed amongst other current groups, the tweet is a provocation not an endorsement. they throwing a dilemma into our faces when they pit notorious neo nazi fuckwits from the 70s-80s against the PIE - the paedophile information exchange, who the NF protested against in the 70s. we are being asked pick aside - nazis or paedos. is a false dilemma because they are both vile and can pick neither. but it is a provocation not an endorsement, even they are right wing nut job. i dont know what point they are trying to make , there is no context to the tweet. something about liberal hypocrisy or something and we are supposed to be conflicted by. i like to see what the tweet was in response to tbh. it not an endorsement of the kind or strength as is being suggested. interestingly what gingercat had tried to replace it with was clear endorsements of islamophobic tweets and of tommy robinson's dogshit. i personally think thats a clearer indication of right wing nationalist support than the tweet gingercat tried to replace. it certainly wasnt whitewashing.
ive not looked at their other edits thus far, but i have a suspicion that gingercat may a be little too zealous in removing some of the hyperbole that is present in the our terf articles and has encountered push back from folk a little too zealous in defending it. something i have encountered when editting jk rowlings article. my advice to gingercat is to let it slide, they are a hiding to nothing here.
i personally am not a fan of some our trans related content. its appears to me to represent a brand of activism that empowers terfs more than it counters them, at the expense of winning over the wider public, to the detriment of trans rights. this isnt the place for me to go over all the issues i have with our content. but for a cause personally close to me, on this site of all places, it is painful to me that i can do no more than leave it be. i dont have the energy to do more. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
one more point the that nf vs pie tweet and how its not an endorsement. its not just provocation either imho. its trap. a really obvious one easily side stepped by anyone not so eager to relish the opportunity to score points by zeroing in on proof neo nazi sympathies. how does the tweet go again? back in the day to nf fought against PIE. choose your side. something like that. we blundered head first into it, pleased as punch we can call her a facist, a nazi, a racist, whatever we like. we have remained silent about the paedo part of the equation. thats enough for twitter fucknuts to say we have implicitly picked team paedo. its dogshit of course. but its twitter - dogshit is king. they dont care if we call them nazis or facists or what have you. they probably are and proud of it. im less comfortable with getting called a paedo. terfs and bigots and assorted trolls thrive on this shit. we do not, but we insist on playing their game with their rules when we can only lose. it hurts the trans cause. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Can we topic ban this guy too? This is five paragraphs of disingenuous waffle. The full Twitter convo is easy to find. KJK brought up the National Front and PIE unprompted in response to being correctly accused of supporting "fascist scum" over the "anti-fascists stopping them." It's a blatant example of the "groomer" attack. KJK resorted to transparent queerphobic slander because it's hard to deny her fascist sympathies when neo-Nazis have turned up to Sieg Heil at her rallies and she has persistently refused to condemn or disavow them. AMassiveGay conveniently left out the fact that Gingercat also scrubbed the word "fascist" from KJK's article. Which is apparently the same thing that happened in AMG's oblique reference to "editting[sic] jk rowlings[sic] article." I'm not gonna debate whether it it was fair to label JKR a "fascist" in 2023. (That label does seem a bit fairer now than it did then.) But KJK is absolutely a fascist. If your takeaway from this is "radical trans activists have gone too far," you shouldn't be within a lightyear of RW's coverage of gender and sexuality. Burnt Toast (talk) 20:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
…I really don't get a good feeling from Gingercat's complete silence here. By which I mean "I don't really think they give a shit about a topic ban, they're gonna carry on regardless". (Please prove me wrong.) --Luigifan18 (talk) 21:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
You're going to have to do better here with your citations, Burnt Toast. I really don't like sourcing contentious claims like "fascist" about living people from a random Twitter shit thread and a 2 hour unsourced Youtube spiel. It's relatively easy to source that neo-Nazis doing Nazi salutes have been present at her rallies. It's easy to document that Keen-Minshull has *many* ties with radical / populist right organizations. It's also easy to find that Keen-Minshull has successfully sued an Australian MP who called her a neo-Nazi. Documenting this is fine. But I personally am not comfortable with the "fascist" label unless it is pretty clear that such is the case. Currently I think the evidence is weak, and that leaves this article open to attack if such claims are left in. BobJohnson (talk) 21:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Please take care to note what link is what sourcing text. "[Neo-Nazis have] turned up to Sieg Heil at her rallies" has a link to a photo because as you point out that has been extensively reported. "[She has] persistently refused to condemn or disavow them" has a link to Shaun's vid because KJK's complicity is less well known. Shaun's vid is one of the best breakdowns I've seen. It includes screenshots documenting that KJK was advised in advance neo-Nazis planned to show up in Melbourne and refused to condemn them. KJK winning a libel suit isn't evidence of merit to her claims. British libel law is weird and she had a billionaire offering to cover her legal fees. Burnt Toast (talk) 21:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
you will note that i commented on only two of gingercats disputed edits and i said as much. i explained why i disagreed with the claim that they are were attempts at whitewashing. with keen-minshull's twitter post i went further and i explained why i disagreed with characterising it as an endorsement. folk are free to disagree. none of what you have said addresses my reasoning whether anyone agrees with it or not. note that i have not disputed their probable nazi sympathises. i said she probably is of that persuasions. i disputed that that one twitter post, devoid of context with the article, is neither a proof nor an endorsement of nazis. you will also note that even if i were to agree that these two edits by gingercat were whitewashing, it still would not be transphobic whitewashing. not calling a terf a fascist is not denying the transphobia of a terf. perhaps you shouldnt be editing gender and sexuality articles if you dont know. but dont worry i will leave you to it. i already said i had no intention of editing these articles. i can do without this exact bullshit every time i deign to disagree. and i mean it when i say this doesnt help. all we are doing with terfs and bigots is throwing bricks at each other. they feed of this drama while we alienate the general public, the people we should be focusing on to educate and inform and clear up misunderstandings they might have. there is not alot of that in our articles and what there is just isnt good enough. thats a win for the terfs. we hurt trans people with this shit. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
We would be hurting trans people by censoring our coverage of the anti-trans movement out of fear of being perceived as big meanies and/or getting hit with a SLAPP suit. There are multiple points of evidence supporting KJK's fash sympathies beyond that one tweet. Perhaps the most infamous was her telling armed men to patrol women's bathrooms in 2021. If you're unwilling to look at this evidence for reasons that amount to "I'm not watching a two-hour YouTube video," then maybe sit down and leave this topic area to folks who are. Burnt Toast (talk) 22:57, 6 September 2024‎ (UTC)
i repeat, i disputed a total of two edits. which you still dont address but choose instead to attack for me for something i have not said or implied. i have said that one tweet does not do what you think does. where i have said that this one tweet is not proof of her sympathies and therefore invalidates all other evidence proofing them? no where is where. i have not disputed calling her a fascist. other people have. ive said she probably is. ive made no comment on if we have enough to say definitively. there is plenty in the article that gives strong evidence to extreme bigotry of various kinds, more than enough for condemnation. why is a specific label for her bigotry required? what does it add to article? what does it lose by being just short of being definitive? will we all think terfs are good people because they might be not quite fascist enough to insist they are? and i repeat i have made no comment in either direction. and no, i am not willing to watch a two hour long youtube for evidence that should be in the article. if the evidence we require is not in the article it is a shit article. if we cannot support every claim we make evidence in the article, then it is not just a shit article, it is an article that can be dismissed because we make shit up. no one will be watching two hour youtube to confirm what the article should already be doing.
stoking up fear by overplaying the threat presented by these more extreme terf pricks who represent a tiny minority of terfs hurts trans people if they become more fearful than they need to be, become less visible as a result. it hurts trans people when misinformation is more likely spread by reasonable looking people making reasonable sounding concerns to the general public rather than the racist bigots warning of paedo rapists we have led them to expect aand we havent done enough it show who trans people really are to know any betterAMassiveGay (talk) 02:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
She is by the way not a TERF, because she's not even a feminist. She herself says she's not one, even if her rhetoric would be strongly suggestive that she sees herself as one. Chillpilled (talk) 02:25, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
It isn't "stoking up fear" to accurately report on the false claims and extreme rhetoric employed by transphobes. At this point cozying up to the far-right isn't limited to some "tiny minority" of lunatic fringe TERFs like Jennifer Bilek. J.K. Rowling has been retweeting Christopher Rufo and Libs of TikTok for well over a year. I'm sorry that you seem to have your head in the sand about this. But transphobes really are at this level of off-mask extreme, and it's not hypothetical that trans people are getting hurt. If you ask transphobes to listen to trans people, their families, and experts on trans issues, they'll scream and call you a death threat-supporting misogynist whether you're a combative furry on Twitter or a beloved celebrity asking very gently. There is nothing to be gained from trying to mollify transphobes or from humoring this kind of concern trolling over optics. Burnt Toast (talk) 03:43, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
'Keen-Minshull has successfully sued an Australian MP who called her a neo-Nazi'. I think that alone is enough to warrant treading very carefully, in light of certain incidents nobody shall be able to recall before long... KarmaPolice (talk) 21:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
English libel law [Scottish law is a bit different] is significantly stricter than American - in fact, is one of the top SLAPP destination of choice in the world. However, there's zero connections between England and the RMF, so English law [I believe] wouldn't apply [as they will tell the suer that the USA is the appropriate location to sue, as stated in the Defamation Act 2013]. This was in fact one of the reasons I declined to run to be on the RMF - I feared that as a UK citizen resident in England, this might create a tenuous link in which I could be in effect, forced to defend RMF in the Old Bailey. Now, we have a variant of 'Section 230' [in the previously mentioned Act] but it's a bit weaker and again, it would most likely having to me work all on my lonesome to fend off said SLAPP. So best not, hmm? KarmaPolice (talk) 21:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
That was a blatant SLAPP suit. Pesutto settled because he's on an Australian MP's salary while KJK had a billionaire offering to write her a blank cheque. British libel law places the burden of proof on the defendant, meaning that KJK didn't have to prove she wasn't a "neo-Nazi"/"Nazi sympathizer" etc., only that she this accusation damaged her reputation. I also believe the claim that prompted the lawsuit was that she had "invited" the neo-Nazis to Melbourne. There's an audio recording of her shrugging off a warning neo-Nazi groups might turn up in Melbourne ("people are free to turn up wherever they like" and "it's a free-speech event"). Tacit permission isn't an explicit personal invitation. So technically the claim she "invited" them wasn't a demonstrably factual statement. SLAPP suits rely on onlookers never peering beneath their proclamations of victory. Burnt Toast (talk) 22:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Shaun's video is an extensive breakdown of the subject, FWIW, but not everyone is willing to sit down and watch a 2 hour long video essay. Carthage (talk) 04:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Is he still making long-ass videos? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 20:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Ja. Carthage (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Vote on topic banning Gingercat from gender-related articles[edit]

This vote has been closed. Please do not add, remove or change votes.
The result of this vote was: Gingercat is topic banned by an 11 to 2 vote.

Ja[edit]

  1. Carthage (talk) 22:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
  2. Sure. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 23:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
  3. Scream!! (talk) 23:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
  4. I very nearly voted against this until I saw this user's first comment in this section of their last ATIM case. Specifically the quote: "on a website calling itself Rational Wiki one would expect it to follow biological science, in other words XX chromosomes = female and XY = male". This user is pushing an agenda in mainspace that runs counter to the wiki's mission, so a topic ban is appropriate. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 00:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
    …Oh. Oh, yikes. --Luigifan18 (talk) 00:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
  5. Bigotry is not scientific. Twit. 😖 I'm still not sure if this Gingercat is naïve or transphobic. Either way, they need something in between a slap on the wrist and having their wrist smashed into paste with a sledgehammer. (And I shouldn't have to explain this, but "in between" means that a slap on the wrist (mere chastisement) is too light to get the point across and smashing the wrist into paste (permaban) is too harsh.) So I'm still not sure if a total topic ban is the right call, but letting them completely off the hook again certainly isn't. --Luigifan18 (talk) 01:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
    …In spite of my misgivings about a topic ban being warranted, I still think I should stick with my current vote because of @Gingercat's complete failure to even try to defend themselves, which seems to be indicative of depraved indifference towards RationalWiki's mission and conflict resolution procedure. If the topic ban passes, I do not foresee Gingercat making any attempts to honor it. I hope to be proven wrong. (Perhaps a short block is warranted, if only in order to make it clear that we're serious.) --Luigifan18 (talk) 22:49, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
  6. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 14:49, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
  7. Someone is trying to push a transphobic agenda and is besmirching ginger cats (including my beloved Jester Gingerbits of fond memory) while doing so. A topic ban is the least they deserve. Spud (talk) 15:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
  8. for their own mental wellbeing. pushing some transphobic agenda is not what is going on here, whether one agrees with their edits or not. — Unsigned, by: AMassiveGay / talk / contribs
    We reached somewhere near the same conclusion, yet I decided to go to the other side... KarmaPolice (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
  9. Burnt Toast (talk) 19:29, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
  10. (っ◔◡◔)っ ♥ Natsuki Marx ♥ (talk) 20:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
  11. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 15:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Nein[edit]

  1. Their other work here seems okay and it's more greywashing than outright denialism [or a belief that the stuff was sensationalist]. Plus, I don't like topic bans because they are hard to actually enforce. I'd prefer to simply note their pattern of behaviour, point out 'we are watching you' and hope they quit doing it. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
    I want to agree with you, but I think Gingercat's silence here is rather suspicious… --Luigifan18 (talk) 23:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
    It's possible they've gone into hiding after seeing the dogpile, fearing they won't get a decent hearing. KarmaPolice (talk) 23:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
    Oh, I definitely know that feeling, but the silence is still unnerving. --Luigifan18 (talk) 00:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
  2. The fact this editor also removed an attack on Owen Jones on his page tells me this editor probably doesn't have some big agenda since he's known for being a pro-trans columnist. The interpretation of KJK's tweet as a "clear" endorsement of NF also looked unfounded enough I changed it again myself after looking through the thread it's in (you could say she implied her support but that could just as well be your confirmation bias). Quibbling about who to label fascist or not is boilerplate stuff here although in KJK's case, she is bare minimum complicit with fascists. Chillpilled (talk) 22:13, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Ziege[edit]

  1. I don't think I understand what's going on well enough to vote just yet. Luigifan18 (talk) 21:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
    Perhaps try reading the case presented? Carthage (talk) 23:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
    I tried looking at the last ATIM, and I still can't tell what's going on. Like, is this Gingercat simply overzealous in wanting RationalWiki to produce evidence to back up its claims, or are they actually trying to make transphobes look like they're not wastes of flesh? --Luigifan18 (talk) 23:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
    Well you got your answer now. So why not vote? Carthage (talk) 01:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
    Just chimed in. Again, I wasn't around for most of this havoc, but the "only two genders" nonsense was enough to make me rear back and think "This person needs to be re-educated on gender before they try talking about it again"… sure, you could make an argument about there only being two sexes (though that may or may not be wrong, depending on how one counts hermaphrodites), but gender is quite a bit more fluid complicated than that. Either this Gingercat is breathtakingly naïve, they haven't been educated properly, or they're transphobic (actually, those last two options are probably more of a set of concentric circles than a Venn diagram), and either way, they need… er, something in between a slap on the wrist and smashing their wrist with a sledgehammer.
    (And now I'm curious if I can try lumping TERFs into Buchanincel or if I should just stick with having it represent incels and white supremacy…) --Luigifan18 (talk) 01:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
    …So, uh, is @Gingercat gonna try to defend themselves? I still want to believe that this is a case of honest naïvety and dedication to genuine credibility rather than malicious transphobia, but the fact that this is the second ATIM vote on this subject (along with some of the comments I have heard of) make me a bit doubtful of that. --Luigifan18 (talk) 14:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
    Their edit history suggests they go weeks without an edit. Not everyone is very active on here. Chillpilled (talk) 01:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
    That'd be fair, but we reacted to their offending edits (including protecting the page they messed with) pretty quickly, so I'm not sure how they'd be unaware of what happened. --Luigifan18 (talk) 15:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
  2. Why is this vote in German? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 23:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
    More importantly, why wasn't it fully in German? [until I corrected it, obs] KarmaPolice (talk) 23:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
  3. Considering they edited on the Andrew Tate page before I would've liked if it was "transgender-related topics" rather than "gender-related topics". Chillpilled (talk) 19:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
    I'd probably be fine with changing it to "gender identity-related topics". Plutocow (talk) 19:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)


Impersonation of Wikipedian[edit]

Someone might wanna rename User:NoobThreePointOh as there is a user on Wikipedia with that same name. Carthage (talk) 18:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Done. In the future, this is the kind of thing that's better to go on a mod or tech's talkpage rather than needing to bring it to ATIM. Plutocow (talk) 18:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Ending the DMorris drama for once and all[edit]

So I was hit by thirteen fucking notifications (thanks for that, guys) so I decided to see what the fuss was about. Apparently, it was an edit war on the now-deleted User talk:Trollhunter. Now, I don't exactly have a good feeling on this Trollhunter account, they seem to be a single issue editor and by pursuing this feud they have a level of familiarity with RW that indicates they aren't a new user. Nevertheless, I found parts of their case fairly convincing, so I'll bring it up here.

After your IP was exposed, you couldn't help yourself but to shit the wiki with more of your spam accounts. Not even Dyskloser is this brazen or unhinged. @Bongolian @CorruptUser @Techpriest @Plutocow @Spud @KarmaPolice can you also permaban User:King Bowser K. Rool fka User:71.208.x.x (note similarities to now-blocked User:71.208.249.110)? This was confirmed as a DMorris sock here when User:Christopher found out via autoblocks that the account shared an IP with a banned cheerleader sock, not to mention the DMorris-like behaviour exhibited by that account plus the recently banned IP. If you can actually start enforcing DMorris's permaban, I'll once again be able to take my leave. Trollhunter (talk) 01:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Now, a vandal attack that has some of the markings of a DMorris attack isn't really convincing evidence, as it could be a coincidence. I also don't really want to rehash any of the Dysklyver drama. Nonetheless, the point about King Bowser K. Rool is a strong one. For those OOTL:

  • As the message states, King Bowser K. Rool was originally named 71.208.x.x, tying them to a specific IP range. Rename log here and the place where they requested to change their name was here.
  • In 2021, they claimed to have been editing for "a couple of years" before signing up. Others are suspicious they only joined to comment on Oxyaena's talk page.
  • He was well known to have an obsession with Oxyaena and Dysklyver and the fact that they blocked people for being DMorris, see his comments in this ATIM case for instance.
  • Shortly after his rename, he applied to be a tech. People noticed that he didn't provide a real reason for wanting to be a tech besides changing usernames, and he didn't even list any relevant technical experience. However, his case really fell apart when Christopher discovered that King Bowser K. Rool shared an autoblock with a driveby cheerleader account. There was even an ATIM case over this, but it went nowhere as King Bowser K. Rool LANCB'd.
    • Why is this so damning? Well, to put it simply, autoblocks are the closest thing we have to checkuser. Whenever any user who has edited recently is blocked and "disable autoblock" isn't checked, the most recent IP address used by that user is autoblocked and is listed right after the blocked account on Special:BlockList. However, if the blocked account shares an IP with an account that has a still active autoblock, then a new autoblock won't be created as each IP can only be under one autoblock at any given time. Instead, the autoblock from the previous block will move to right below the newly blocked user. All of this information has been confirmed by me performing various technical tests, and using this information can determine whether two accounts share an IP (but not what that IP is, so it's not an abuse of rights or anything).
    • How do we know that DMorris created the cheerleader socks? Well, go back to a specific moment in the Luigifan archive.

The "cheerleader weirdo" is more than likely User:Grawp or someone imitating him. I recall speculation a few years ago (largely from Oxyaena and Dyskliver who said everybody they didn't like was Morris or MikeMike, if I remember correctly) that Grawp is actually DMorris, but I don't see the connection. Again, if I'm remembering correctly, DMorris and Ex-Troll were about the same age and from the same city or nearby cities, so they more than likely knew each other and probably liked each other off-wiki, therefore even if the two played cat-and-mouse on the wiki (likely just to cause disruption), I doubt he would have told her she should be raped as I recall Grawp doing as that was probably very hurtful to her. Nonetheless, while I'm too lazy to dig up links, regardless of who it is that is one nasty troll and the best way to deal with it is to Troll. King Bowser K. Rool (talk) 17:03, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Rat-Wiki is stupid, period. They can't tell trolls apart from each other (they think I am Grawp... lol), and sometimes can't tell good faith editors from bad faith editors. Plus it's widely known that people have multiple accounts there, which raises an interesting question as to whether those people are voting for board members more than once. But while we're on the topic of that sewer, why do we have an article on GrammarCommie? He is a loser. Conservapedia is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias don't cover random losers. We are not Rat-Wiki. RE: Trent Toulouse's weight, I'm pretty sure his weight has nothing to do with his idiocy, but he's not even very active there anymore unless he has a sock, as Rob has proposed. Seriously though, why do we even talk about those losers on here? We used to have a policy against that. We need to return to those days. I only brought them up (referring to them as a rat nest because that's what they are) because of Rob trying to imitate them, which is retarded. DMorris (talk) 07:32, September 16, 2023 (EDT)

    • The bolded can only be referring to the cheerleader accounts. This is the direct evidence linking them together but there's plenty of circumstantial evidence too.
    • I'd like to bring up some of the things brought up at the basement discussion: that the trolling involved is very in-character for DMorris, that the technical explanation they gave for sharing the same IP makes no sense, and some of King Bowser K. Rool's weird edits

Now, of course this account is inactive and not too big a deal, so why bring it up? Well, if they're still editing via IP, that is a problem as they used a LANCB to completely avoid accountability and continue their behavior. User:15.220.65.187, which continued the edit war, is a very similar IP to User:15.220.65.238 which continued the vile trolling of the banned accounts after I hit quarantine. Both are proxies, but since they're nearly the same they likely come from the same provider. Another thing that has a small chance of being a coincidence but adds more circumstantial evidence. Let's look at the contributions of User:71.208.249.110, the IP that was first accused of ban evading:

Given the evidence above, I am blocking King Bowser K. Rool for being a ban evasion of DMorris and extending the block of 71.208.249.110 as well. If people disagree, we can put it to a vote, but I'd prefer wrapping this up quickly as I want to avoid drama rather than generate more drama; nevertheless, I will leave this open for a couple days so others can comment. Any trolling (on either side) will be deleted and result in blocks. Plutocow (talk) 03:11, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

For the record, I have no intention of ban evading and said as much. I'd rather pop in on the Discord next June to show you how much I'm improving, and then appeal sometime in 2026. --Luigifan18 (talk) 03:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
I appreciate that, Luigifan18. As has been said before, the RW Discord server operates independently of the RW website, so being banned on the website should not imply that you are banned on the RW Discord server. Bongolian (talk) 04:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Luigifan is also currently banned from the RW Discord server due to attempting incessantly to ask us to negotiate on his 3-month wiki block and then being whiny and annoying when we told him we wouldn't do that. The Discord ban was agreed upon by myself, Techpriest, LGM, and probably other users who I'm not remembering at the moment. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 14:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
I was unaware of that. Looks like the welcome is worn out. Bongolian (talk) 16:24, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
I wasn't seeking to negotiate on that block, I was seeking information about the removal of one of my ref notes. And I agreed with that removal (it was the ref note on the Heaven page, which I inserted specifically to discourage some edit warring that was going on at the time, and I felt that everything it needed to say had been properly incorporated into the article and the note had outlived its usefulness), but I wanted to have that information for my user page. That was all. In fact, I had decided that I was beating a dead horse after the second kick and was trying to shift gears when I was banned (I specifically remember mentioning a "Luigifan moment" to crack a joke at my own expense).
I would like to rejoin the Discord server, BTW, but I don't think I'm ready yet in light of the recent drama. I feel like I need to work on the character flaws that have gotten everyone tired of my shit first. I'll ping Techpriest on my talk page to ask to be let in sometime next year, probably June (I picked that month mostly because my birthday is June 18 and getting the chance to establish some goodwill with the RW community might make a good birthday present). (I'll probably need to maintain some ties with the RationalWiki community and keep its standards of etiquette fresh in my mind in order to stand a chance on appeal, anyways.) --Luigifan18 (talk) 16:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, so you can see right there why all of us on the Discord banned him. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 16:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) See RW talk:Discord#WTFban. I would advise not begging to be let in after months. Several years on the other hand is possible, that's what a permaban amounts to if it's reversed and someone comes back. You're not going to change much in just months and all you'd do is annoy people more. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 16:42, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
I dunno, I'm quite motivated and I have a behaviorist to help me. And I'm talking about a span of about 9 months right now. It might be longer if I still don't think I'm ready. (Also, I'm only talking about the Discord server, not the upcoming block from the main site. Rejoining RationalWiki itself is probably not on the table until mid-2026 at the earliest.) In any case, I'm having a hard time thinking of online communities or forums I can use to show improvements in my behavior (1d6chan, which is where I'm currently hanging out, is (perhaps unsurprisingly) not interested in being a character reference), so, uh, popping in on Discord and just having civil conversations is the best thing I can think of. It's a loose plan, and I know I need to back away from RationalWiki for a long time and let the scars fade. Heck, impatience is one of those character flaws I need to work on before I'll be ready to rejoin anyways. --Luigifan18 (talk) 17:21, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm so fucking tired of this "DMorris" shit. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 14:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
DMorris is at least some of the arseholes who post stuff about cheerleaders here. There was a vandal on Wikipedia who was a real life cheerleader. DMorris convinced her to stop vandalizing Wikipedia and vandalize RW instead back when we tolerated vandals more. But trolls copy each other. And I don't think we're going to get rid of DMorris once and for all by blocking 2 accounts. Spud (talk) 15:51, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Plutocow's actions seem reasonable to me. Bongolian (talk) 16:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, I want the drama to end but that clearly can't happen if DMorris continues to ban evade under the radar. The hope is that this can alert other users to the patterns so he can no longer stay hidden for such a long amount of time. I guess this is another reminder that ending an ATIM/coop case because a user LANCB'd is never a good idea. Plutocow (talk) 19:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, I should’ve made it clearer. I wasn’t criticizing Plutocow; I was commenting in general. I banhammered like 5 accounts/BoNs yesterday for trying to revive this years-dead idiotic drama. I commend you for trying to end it for good. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 20:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Likewise. Spud (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Plutocow et al spamming talkpages[edit]

The Krampus and Ariel accounts share an autoblock on Special:BlockList, proving that they share an IP and are, in fact, the same person. Web archive snapshot saved here. Plutocow (talk) 21:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

This spam has been placed on my talk page by Plutocow.

Sockpuppet.jpg Excuse me, dear sir or madam, but I'm looking for a lost little sockpuppet.
You haven't happened to see any sockpuppets around here,
have you, Plutocow?


I don't object to the false claim that I am Ariel31459. He is an idiot, of course, but I suppose he isn't a terrible person. What is the point of allowing unverifiable claims, in a template no less, to be made on my talk page? I really object to spamming my page with ugly graphics. I know I am not in a position to demand or do anything, but this is an insipid sort of thing to do to a sysop. I don't want to do anything but remove the template. I do not object to the claim. I simply deny it. Say what you want about me. Call me a fool like Ariel if you like Charley. PlutoC can state, in words, their assertions any time on my page. This form of claim appears to carry some kind of wiki imprimatur, which it really doesn't, but other users may not understand that it was placed there by the wiki jesters. If spamming templates can be placed on anyone's talk pages without recourse to removal, users ought to be made aware of that fact.UncleKrampus (talk) 19:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Look, you aren't being accused of breaking any rules, there's no need to be such a drama queen. Speedily archive this? Plutocow (talk) 19:29, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
It isn't "spamming unverifiable claims" if a user publicly reveals they have a sock by making several edits to one of their own comments using it. Burnt Toast (talk) 19:43, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Sometimes people post things on ATiM that the Mods are empowered to somehow deal with. All too often though, people run bawling to the mods about something which inconveniences the OP personally, plaintively expecting action on a "problem" the mods have no real jurisdiction over. I'll let the community guess which category fits this thread.
Also UncleAriel, here's a tip-your fiendishly clever plot to run a sock account because...whatever, is doomed to fail if your sock talks in the exact same way as you.-Flandres (talk) 19:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the word salad. You talk like a few clones yourself, that doesn't mean I can recognize somebody among your socks. Also, thank you Burnt Toast, I see now what happened. Why Ariel31459 edited a comment of mine I don't know. You can call me Ariel, like I said. I simply am not that person.
Please, if its not too much trouble, remove the template and say what you like about me, Charley. UncleKrampus (talk) 20:02, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Press "x" to doubt on that one, chief. Besides, the fact that Ariel and Krampus didn't show up in any of the same votes is excellent circumstantial evidence towards them being the same person, as if they did it'd be a pretty flagrant violation of CS and thus they were incentivized to avoid it. The idea that two seperate users who were around for this long never crossed paths in any votes would be a pretty huge coincidence. For instance, check the 2021 voter list where Ariel didn't vote despite running but UncleKrampus did, compared to 2022 and 2023 when Ariel voted and Krampus didn't. Regardless, Krampus has failed to establish that the messages at the center of the inquiry are "spam", so no real case has been presented here. Plutocow (talk) 20:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Let's apply Occam's Razor here: did Ariel return after months of inactivity only to make mysterious, unexplained additions to your comment, and then vanish without apologising for this "mistake" or having their apparently uninvited edits reverted by you? Or did you forget to change your auto-login and not notice the slip-up until we did? Burnt Toast (talk) 20:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
I have inquired to Ariel. I did not know of this "evidence" until BT linked it. I almost never vote on anything, PC so I don't think much of your evidence. This complaint is about spamming my talk page with inelegant designs. You can call me Ariel, Charley.UncleKrampus (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Bro, we caught you in the act. Just give it up. You’re embarrassing yourself. Pumpkin pixel glow.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoTry our pumpkin spice lasagna! 20:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
(ec)UncleKrampus has very few mainspace edits. However, looking at those that do exist, they overlap heavily with Ariel, and they have the same history of being litigious over pages like Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris, and Carl Jung. Like, it's obvious that they're the same person. Plutocow (talk) 20:48, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
You know, I suspected this for some time-as I said before, they talk in the same longwinded and pretentious style-but I didn't want to be accused of being a drama queen by raising this without proof. Thankfully, Ariel was dumb enough to hand us all proof.-Flandres (talk) 20:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
To be clear, socks aren't forbidden on RW, you just need to declare them and never double vote with them. Unless someone has a diff involving edit warring or said sockpuppeting being used to break site rules, I'm not fully sure what the issue is here. -- Techpriest (talk) 20:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Ariel is complaining because we put the sock template on the talk page of his sock. The rest of us are clowning on him. Pumpkin pixel glow.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoTry our pumpkin spice lasagna! 20:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
The block log confirms they have the same IP. Case closed. Plutocow (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Aye fair enough, but this doesn't even come close to being an ATIM thing. Also, thanks Pluto; guess we can just make it a declared sockpuppet and keep it in mind for votes. -- Techpriest (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Dug through this user's history a bit. Seems to be a lot of gross trolling like this going back years. Do they actually do any mainspace work, or just post inflammatory things on talk pages? Burnt Toast (talk) 21:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
(ec) We don't have Checkuser here. We can't know for sure if Krampus is actually Ariel (the Harris incident is a much stronger evidence IMO than the edits from last night). However, we don't remove comments from talk pages unless they are clear trolling attempts. Whether Krampus is a sock or not is not enough reason to remove the template, because it's part of a discussion. He can answer and deny the claims if he wants too. It's up to people to make their own minds. If however, Krampus and Ariel vote on the same issue in the future, I don't think we should discard one of the votes, because the evidence is circumstantial. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 21:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
We do know they're the same person. The two accounts sharing the autoblock is a smoking gun. Plutocow (talk) 21:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
I was writing my post when you posted that. Ok, that's enough, they are the same person. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 21:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
As I have said, I just don't like the template. The whales are nice. Saying "son, you did something stupid" is a story that touches my heart. Claiming a person is someone other than who they say they are is something else, like misgendering. It isn't cool. I don't mind. I just don't like the template. It carries no information that is not expressed by " Uncle Krampus, you beautiful bastard, you are Ariel, are you not? Well no mind, we think that you are." UncleKrampus (talk) 21:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
We have proof. The fact that you continue to deny it is pathetic, and comparing it to misgendering is stooping even lower. Plutocow (talk) 21:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Krampus is the one who brought this to the mod page, not us. Pumpkin pixel glow.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoTry our pumpkin spice lasagna! 21:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Just one of the clowns? UncleKrampus (talk) 21:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
My god man, Plutocow brought the receipts. It’s over. You’re embarrassing yourself. Pumpkin pixel glow.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoTry our pumpkin spice lasagna! 21:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
He's good at that. Like the time he got horny from one of our Right-wing pundits after seeing that the uploaded picture showed her legs, lol. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 22:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Really? I'm being childish now? UncleKrampus (talk) 22:29, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
The grown-up thing to do would’ve been to fess up and move on. Pumpkin pixel glow.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoTry our pumpkin spice lasagna! 22:43, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

(ec)This revelation brings some amusing things to light. For example, check out Krampus's "antiendorsement" of Ariel here:

The hell with this guy. Patience can look like stupidity. all the more so when you yourself are stupid.UncleKrampus (talk) 17:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

When Krampus posted this, Ariel's mod campaign was essentially jeopardized due to him getting into a stupid argument on the campaign page. Given that Krampus anti-endorsed everyone else with flimsy reasoning, it can be seen as an attempt to salvage their mod campaign by bringing down everyone else. At the bare minimum, this seems to qualify as disruption. Plutocow (talk) 22:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, his anti-endorsement of Cory is hilarious:

Doesn't know when to shut up, and backs off from sock accounts.UncleKrampus (talk) 17:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Plutocow (talk) 22:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
To me, those comments read more like a temper tantrum than anything calculated. Pumpkin pixel glow.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoTry our pumpkin spice lasagna! 22:48, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps. As I said, disruption. Plutocow (talk) 22:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
1) As noted above there is no prohibition on socking except for sock voting or ban/block evasion. 2) UncleKrampus, as DuceMoosolini said, stop embarrassing yourself by trying to deny this after the evidence has been posted. 3) It's bad form to remove comments from one's talk page unless the comments are trolling/threatening/libelous/violent/incivil. Don't do it. Bongolian (talk) 02:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
I would like to congratulate this ATIM for being the first to make me laugh out loud.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 05:31, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Possible Luigifan18 sock?[edit]

User:Edict123456789 is making waves as a potential ban evasion of User:Luigifan18. Some evidence for this is the fact that their userpage uses a template that Luigifan had on their userpage, similar abuse of ref notes (one of which I reverted for being Luigifanesque), and similar disruption on talkpages. That said, I'm not entirely convinced they're the same person, given that of all the things Luigifan has done, I don't think digging up old troll conversations like the one at Talk:Autism (a page they never really showed interest in) is one of them. Regardless, it is entirely possible that they're a troll intentionally imitating Luigifan's style to piss people off here. How should we proceed? Plutocow (talk) 22:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I am not convinced that user is an impersonation or troll. It looks like obvious ban evasion to me. A quick block is probably warranted with talk-page access revoked. That user has a tendency to write 1000s of words and soak up everyone's editing time for drama and attention. Johns (talk) 23:08, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Likewise I think ban evasion is more plausible. It's not too strange if someone leaves and comes back if they start out with a somewhat different focus at first, while patterns show it's the same person. Carthage vandal binned this person, which allows them to still edit while doing less damage. If we don't do something else like deciding on a ban evasion ban, I think binning should remain given the problematic editing. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 01:02, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Luigifan18 has almost certainly created at least one sock after being banned. See Luigi18 (contribs). Has there ever been a banned user who gives up and leaves after just one sock? Genuinely curious. MayGodSaveUsAll (talk) 01:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
I doubt that's luigifan. He's said that he's working on his pokemon thing on a different website.Ioe bidome (talk) 01:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Remember that the coop case that led to luigifan being banned was swarming with trolls. Ioe bidome (talk) 14:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
@MayGodSaveUsAll it depends, really, but in most cases, no. They'll always come back, either to edit or troll, most of them eventually stop after a couple months and move onto something else, or a different project The MoR (talk) 01:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm a little skeptical of that being Luigifan as well, since that account's message doesn't go on any weird tangents like Luigifan couldn't resist themselves from doing; still, that account was deservedly permabanned as impersonation is also not allowed. Ban evaders do tend to reoffend, but how often depends on the person. Plutocow (talk) 01:24, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
I doubt its a troll, as I don't believe Luigifan is notorious enough to be imitated, in fact I don't even believe them to be a troll, just an immature individual. However, you do bring up some good points, one of the templates (the Nazi one) on Luigifan's page and Edict123456789 are similar, however quite a few active users use this template as seen here, so it may be possible that they copied it from another prominent editor, of course thats just speculation. I did remember seeing this in the block log today though, care to chime in @Christopher? Though it is entirely possible that the account was editing from or was created from a different IP address or through a VPN/Proxy. I do have one final theory, which may sound far fetched, but it could be very much possible that Edict is Andrew5 (or Gale5050 if you've been on other wikis), as a longtime lurker and IP editor on this wiki and other wiki projects, this user is incredibly notorious for their disruption, and relentless socking efforts (prominently on Wikipedia and Uncyclopedia), which tend to go unnoticed for quite a long time, due to their ability to utilize different IP addresses, which allows them to even slip past checkusers, however their disruption doesn't go unnoticed, and they do eventually get blocked, however its not always known if the account is an Andrew5 sock. I will say, from what I have seen, I wouldn't put it past this person to go to the effort of imitating another user the community despises in order to create disruption, however most likely I am wrong and this is probably a Luigifan sock (I hope I am wrong, the last thing this wiki needs is an Andrew5 problem), best we can do for now is monitor the account and see what happens The MoR (talk) 01:28, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
(ec) Just like Luigifan18, this user doesn't use the efn template on their ref notes. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 01:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I think it's likely that the account is DMorris impersonating Luigifan, no one else would make this edit. This IP identified the account as a Luigi sock while essentially admitting to being Morris. Christopher (talk) 12:41, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

With this, probably best to permaban for ban evasion with TPA open in case the account wants to explain themselves. Plutocow (talk) 18:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Agree, ban as DMorris unless shown otherwise. Bongolian (talk) 18:52, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

RationalThinker and IntrepidSkeptic[edit]

RationalThinker (talk · contribs · block  · rights  · rename) just unilaterally blocked IntrepidSkeptic (talk · contribs · block  · rights  · rename) , a relatively established user, for three months. Now, the latter is a sysop and can unblock themselves, but the intent behind this action is unclear enough that I think it should be brought here. Now, the reason given is "Excessively offensive edits: Posting sexual contant[sic] on talk pages", which seems to be referring to this edit, which is admittedly quite strange and seemingly out of place. Nonetheless, if we are going to take any action on this, it probably should not be done unilaterally. Plutocow (talk) 01:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Of course this can escalate, but it is so far IMO unworthy of our time and energy. I think that a trout in their talk pages is enough for now. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 02:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Agree. Yell at both of them on their talk pages and be done. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 02:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Let's recap. Rational proposed the blocking of a user which has not made an edit in 14 years and Intrepid replied with the offending pic [for those who don't want to see; it's a 90s computer-CD jewelcase (mocked-up or real, who knows?) of what I'll presume to be an interactive porno game called 'Fuckman', the name of which I shall assume was the main reason for posting the link]. From my POV, I get a feeling that Intrepid was giving a variant of 'stupid answers to stupid questions' which I admit give occasionally. Personally, I think the main offendee here is @Spud as it's this is their talkpage [and some folks don't want it to end up with That Sort Of Thing there]. KarmaPolice (talk) 02:11, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
"That Sort of Thing" doesn't bother me in the least. I'm not the tiniest bit offended. I think the 3-month block was way over the top. Just undoing the edit and a talk page warning to IntrepidSkeptic would have been more appropriate. Spud (talk) 08:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
I haven't commented before now since I didn't know if unblocking myself would be frowned upon and I wanted to respect that. For my part, I was really stoned, saw a recent change regarding a user called Fuck and thought, "Hey, reminds me of this goofy-ass 1994 game I saw!" Fuckman is being pursued by the cops like User:Fuck is being pursued by the mods. I figured that it was basically on the same level as the heterosexual male userbox so it likely wouldn't be a problem. I can provide screenshots of the game if it would help. IntrepidSkeptic (talk) 09:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Personally not surprised, since he's constantly replying with "based", Pepe & Vomit emojis on discord. I knew Vaushbots were edgelords, but I didn't think it would be that bad. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 14:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
You're just jealous of my superior stockpile of rare pepes. IntrepidSkeptic (talk) 14:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Pepes and chanspeak are alt-right/neo-Nazi symbols, I actually think you should stop using them. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 15:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
"Based" is genericized. I wouldn't call it "chanspeak," and Pepe usage is not solely limited to the alt-right. It's been reclaimed, to some extent. Carthage (talk) 15:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Pepe and the term "based" have long, long since been reclaimed by leftist streamers. If you don't like them, you're free not to, but the chuds don't own them by any means. Check the Wikipedia or RW articles for Pepe and you'll see it backs this up. IntrepidSkeptic (talk) 15:22, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
I think you should stop using them because they're cringe. Ioe bidome (talk) 15:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
No, I'm sick and tired of you doing this shit!! I like to eat, not loose my appetite! Also, Is that why you're posting them twice as much now? To be a complete and total dickwad?? And you're apparently 27? Pretty sad.
And who the fuck would be jealous of a 27 year old edgelord and his collection of edgy shit memes? And the leftist streamers that reclaim them are Brocialists like Vaush & Hasan. "Left-wingers" that wanna be as shitty as the right by normalizing this because Internet Traditionalism.. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 15:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Our article backs it up? Really? The categories speak for themselfs aswell. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
You're free to think they're cringe. I'm also free to think they're based. If a tiny cartoon of a yellow emoji expelling a green liquid really makes you lose your appetite, I think that's something to look into on your end. I see worse every day in, say, YouTube ads. As for being 27, all I can say is, good taste knows no age. Vaush is 30. Hasan sucks, so I don't really care what he uses, says or does. And yes, the RW article does back it up - see the "Innocent Pepes" section. IntrepidSkeptic (talk) 16:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Yes, because normal people post vomit smileys to everything all the time. DEFINITELY a problem on my side.. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 16:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Dude, we're both RationalWiki editors. I don't think either of us has a claim on being normal. I use the emoji as a way to signify disgust at the news article or whatever that's come up. Being able to slap up an emoji is more convenient than just saying "Yeah, I agree" or "This sucks" if I have nothing further to contribute. IntrepidSkeptic (talk) 16:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I agree with Spud that the block was not a big deal due to unblocking ability. Unblocking oneself only becomes a big deal when it becomes part of an edit warring sequence. In reviewing the blocking policy (RationalWiki:Blocking policy), it seems a bit out of date compared to current de facto practice. Also, please keep Discord drama confined to Discord. Bongolian (talk) 17:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

For future reference, if you're going to link to something NSFW it should be clearly marked as such. Also officially logging that Fuck (talk · contribs · block  · rights  · rename) , who was at the center of the inciting incident, was permabanned by Bongolian for offensive edits. Plutocow (talk) 22:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Which if you look at that user's edits, was the right thing to do. 14 years ago or not. Spud (talk) 14:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Like it matters in this case. It's like banning Al Capone from a casino. Why the hell was this user dug up in the first place? KarmaPolice (talk) 22:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Archive please. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 01:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Was going to give RationalThinker a chance to comment, but they can do that on their talk page if they wish. Archiving. Plutocow (talk) 05:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

2024 Election[edit]

No, not that one. Just that if I'm right the nomination phase of the Mod elections should have kicked off about now... KarmaPolice (talk) 14:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's true (RationalWiki:Moderator elections) if someone can muster up the energy to start it up. Bongolian (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
@KarmaPolice @Bongolian I'm on it. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 19:28, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Oxyaena's talk page archives[edit]

This is a very minor issue, and I'm honestly embarrassed for making a thread over something so small, but since Oxy is a very... controversial person, I decided to do it anyway. Basically, the links to the archives of her talk page were broken, so I fixed them. Since I edited the archives of a banned user, I thought it was the best to inform the moderation. If someone thinks that I shouldn't have done this, I won't dispute. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 14:18, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@GeeJayK I think you did the right thing. And also, thanks for telling us. Spud (talk) 14:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Yes, it is a good thing to do since it is not changing content, but is correcting accessibility. Bongolian (talk) 21:18, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=RationalWiki_talk:All_things_in_moderation/Archive78&oldid=2696979"