There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff—we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity. |
Fighting pseudoscience isn't free. We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $10, $20 or whatever you can today with ![]() ![]() |
RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation/Archive79
Tryhardbutnottoomuch[edit]
This user has a history of racist, transphobic, and antivaxxer concern trolling: [1] [2] [3] [4]
IP [5] is also probably Tryhard, as they share the exact same grammatical patterns and posting topics. IP also has a pattern of concern trolling about racist and transphobic shit: [6] [7] [8] [9]
Just thought I'd bring it to the mods' attention as this user is a repeat problem. Carthage (talk) 14:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
WP content forking.[edit]
Is there any policy regarding doing this? I'm not talking of directly taking WP pages and making them RW pages verbatim [there is no point doing that if nothing else], more that a WP page can sometimes provide 'good bones' that if swiped, would cut down duplication of effort when constructing/improving the RW page. KarmaPolice (talk) 01:58, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- There is nothing policy-wise explicitly against linking to Wikipedia. Wikipedia links for Silver and Gold articles are generally frowned upon, but I don't think that's stated anywhere. There is the problem that Wikipedia is not necessarily a reliable reference (Help:References#Reference reliability), and that Wikipedia pages can change over time, unlike a static source (book or published article). Bongolian (talk) 02:09, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think I've ever seen a copypasta of a wikipedia page (or fragment thereof) that survived on RW without being quickly deleted after it was created. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 02:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- I see no problem with cribbing references from Wikipedia, although proper due diligence should be practiced as always (like if the citation is a weblink, review the weblink before using it as a reference for whatever project you're doing). Carthage (talk) 02:21, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, also take a look at the citation, if possible, to confirm that it's relevant and actually confirms what you're going to write. Bongolian (talk) 02:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- I've linked to WP articles before, and on occasion looked at their refs for re-use. Thinking reuse of WP mainspace content; say you make a RW article on X and it turns out the 'factual description' of the thing [say 25% of the whole article] was copy/pasted from WP. KarmaPolice (talk) 02:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- If you're just copying rather than paraphrasing, it could be considered plagiarism (not allowed on RW, or WP), depending on how much you're copying. Less than a whole sentence is probably OK, but a whole sentence or more, I think would be plagiarism unless you're also the person who wrote it on WP. Bongolian (talk) 03:06, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- I've linked to WP articles before, and on occasion looked at their refs for re-use. Thinking reuse of WP mainspace content; say you make a RW article on X and it turns out the 'factual description' of the thing [say 25% of the whole article] was copy/pasted from WP. KarmaPolice (talk) 02:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, also take a look at the citation, if possible, to confirm that it's relevant and actually confirms what you're going to write. Bongolian (talk) 02:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- I see no problem with cribbing references from Wikipedia, although proper due diligence should be practiced as always (like if the citation is a weblink, review the weblink before using it as a reference for whatever project you're doing). Carthage (talk) 02:21, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think I've ever seen a copypasta of a wikipedia page (or fragment thereof) that survived on RW without being quickly deleted after it was created. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 02:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Alleged parody or mockery socks[edit]
I left for a week but received several emails similar to what some recently blocked users @B0ar/@BooAR (alleged socks of @Boar have posted):
It took years for editors to realise and to convince the admins that our CBH account was a parody (from Nov. 2018 to Dec. 2023) and a long time to even realise Boar (until recent) was also a parody, and I intend to make it take you even longer next time. As we proved, the mods here cannot distinguish between an actual radical leftist and parody of one. We also left deliberate inaccuracies in Emily Willoughby's article, some that have not even yet been amended or removed. Its your choice whether to continue playing this game as long as you continue to smear HBD writers and intelligence researchers we will continue making and inserting the parody edits.
Any thoughts what to do with this? If a troll/parody account did create the Emily Willoughby article what is the policy on this? From what I can tell, the users taking credit for this are from the Human Diversity Foundation and/or the The Jolly Heretic (which the HDF apparently owns). I made a mistake of mentioning my email address on my page and will probably hide it from edit history. Aside from these trolls from the HDF posting stuff - evidence was compiled for the alleged sockpuppet master here. One thing I noted about the Willoughby article is nearly the whole thing seems to be based on Wikipedia edits and drama on wikis which seems out of place (compare to any other article on a hereditarian) and nonsense about "Nazi Dinosaur" art from decades ago. This points to the article being written as a parody or mockery. Anti-eugenicist (talk) 01:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- I've hidden my email and will not further respond to this sort of stuff in the future, however, a solution could be to a vote to delete the article. Anti-eugenicist (talk) 02:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- And the worst part is that they could be bluffing to try to make us shoot ourselves in the foot. But then again, bigots generally aren't smart enough to play psych games. --LeCapraGrande (talk) 02:07, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- We've kept articles before that were created by those trolls, but only if they were substantially rewritten (e.g. Eric Turkheimer). Boar is in all likelyhood a sock/meatpuppet of @CBH, as has been established in previous discussions. I wouldn't mind sending the article through another round of AFDs but maybe someone wants to salvage it. Plutocow (talk) 02:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- And the worst part is that they could be bluffing to try to make us shoot ourselves in the foot. But then again, bigots generally aren't smart enough to play psych games. --LeCapraGrande (talk) 02:07, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- The boaring troll’s edits are all bullshit and should be ignored and consigned to the trash can without comment. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 02:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- The page has already been gone over rather thoroughly post-Boar. Bongolian (talk) 02:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- I will just point out that Emily Willoughby seems to have actually been undoing CBH's troll edits and getting CBH's socks blocked on Wikipedia. This may explain why she was targeted here with a page creation by the same sockmaster. I am surprised no one looked into this before. For example, CBH wrote the following troll article on RationalWiki: Draft_talk:Whiteness (the page was deleted for trolling but its talk remains). The page described whiteness (and white people) as a "parasite". Willoughby undid a troll edit on Wikipedia by an account named "ParasiticWhiteness" which was very likely the same person who was active around the same time on both wikis. Furthermore, there is a long discussion on Wikipedia Willoughby had with an insider who knew the sockmaster. The insider admitted accounts were made simultaneously trolling both Wikipedia/RationalWiki to insert "parody" content and their targets were people associated with the ISIR. Note that Willougby is apparently an International Society for Intelligence Research board member so this further explains why she became a target.
- The page has already been gone over rather thoroughly post-Boar. Bongolian (talk) 02:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- The boaring troll’s edits are all bullshit and should be ignored and consigned to the trash can without comment. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 02:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
At the time when we were adding this material to RationalWiki in 2018-2019, the fact that it was intended as a deliberate parody was quite widely acknowledged. See the discussions here and here, among other places. Some of the really obvious parodies such as the Kathryn Paige Harden article were deleted for that reason, but more than 90% of our parody material about ISIR and the people associated with it has remained basically unaltered. In some cases, the users adding this material about intelligence researchers left deliberate clues so that those who looked carefully could know they were trolling. For example, the person who created the Richard Haier article used the username Kfotfo, which is a one-letter shift forward in the alphabet from "Jensen", in the same way that "IBM" is a one-letter shift from "HAL". The goal of this project was to demonstrate how RationalWiki would allow and promote the most paranoid, defamatory conspiracy theories as long as they supported the site's ideology. Judging by some of the reactions we received, such as this and this, we succeeded at demonstrating that.
Anti-eugenicist (talk) 02:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Just as a reminder for anyone who may have forgotten, Jonathan Kane (the ex-boyfriend in the Nazi dinosaur foofaraw) has an account here (User:Tetrapteryx). He has edited as recently as September and did comment on both his own page and the Willoughby page. — Unsigned, by: Bongolian / talk / contribs
- I will create a vote to delete and make an argument but it will take a while. Hopefully it should be up by Friday. Anti-eugenicist (talk) 03:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- To delete what exactly? The Emily Willoughby RW page? KarmaPolice (talk) 22:11, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- I will create a vote to delete and make an argument but it will take a while. Hopefully it should be up by Friday. Anti-eugenicist (talk) 03:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
FairDinkum and Lavalizard101[edit]
@Lavalizard101 just unilaterally permabanned @FairDinkum after @BobJohnson blocked them for three weeks. For those OOTL, FairDinkum was blocked after a certain saloon bar edit, which is now deleted so only sysops can view it but basically it alleged that a certain banned user (who shall not be named in service of not derailing this thread, as we are not here to relitigate said ban) was the suspect of the United Healthcare CEO shooting using flimsy evidence and seemed to insinuate that the FBI could get involved with RW as a result. It was stupid, but given that FairDinkum was a relatively established user (and was the subject of a coop back in March 2023 in which they were blocked for three months) we might want to run it through the community. We don't need a vote if there are no objections to the permaban, but to be safe we can discuss it here. Plutocow (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Great, the Manchild DJ's back. I wonder if he ever made that infamous "list" of his? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 22:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- I've looked at the offending, and agree with Lavalizard's decision. I think this is one of those things where if we can get all the mods to agree, we can leave it at that. So I ask @ApooftGnegiol, @Bongolian, @DuceMoosolini, @Flandres and @Spud of their opinion of this [we really need a 'summon Mods' ping.] KarmaPolice (talk) 22:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- No objection on my part. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 22:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Something like "{ { p i n g | RWStaff } }"? Might wanna modify their profiles aswell for something like that. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 22:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Fairdinkum called a certain banned user a murderer essentially. That behaviour is disgusting from any account esp from a relatively established user, there is no context where it is acceptable. Lavalizard101 (talk) 22:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Just to throw my two cents in… I checked the archives. It's not the first time they said ridiculous things about that user in particular, let alone anyone else. (I know, I'm not a sysop, but I did see the revision in question before it got purged (though after it had already been reverted), and what the fuck.) --LeCapraGrande (talk) 22:47, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Eh, you shall be in a month or so [unless you turn out to be a complete troll, which I'm sure you're not]. I only blew the mod horn in the desire to make this perma follow something approximating 'due process', remembering previous cases where a banned user complained for the lack of one. So the current count is 3/6. KarmaPolice (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- I support the ban of FairDinkum. The "evidence" given in that post was quite weak, yet FairDinkum said there was a "95% chance" that they are the same person. That's a serious accusation to be based on flimsy evidence, amounting to either defamation or doxing. Bongolian (talk) 00:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- I happen to know the accused user IRL and can confirm that the accusation is false, in case that helps you reach a verdict. (And no, I'm not helping them ban evade. I'm not an idiot.) --LeCapraGrande (talk) 01:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- I support the ban of FairDinkum. The "evidence" given in that post was quite weak, yet FairDinkum said there was a "95% chance" that they are the same person. That's a serious accusation to be based on flimsy evidence, amounting to either defamation or doxing. Bongolian (talk) 00:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Eh, you shall be in a month or so [unless you turn out to be a complete troll, which I'm sure you're not]. I only blew the mod horn in the desire to make this perma follow something approximating 'due process', remembering previous cases where a banned user complained for the lack of one. So the current count is 3/6. KarmaPolice (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Just to throw my two cents in… I checked the archives. It's not the first time they said ridiculous things about that user in particular, let alone anyone else. (I know, I'm not a sysop, but I did see the revision in question before it got purged (though after it had already been reverted), and what the fuck.) --LeCapraGrande (talk) 22:47, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
I read over their post again and just noticed that they just had to put in a dig at me in the end, proving that they still have not let go of their grudges from the coop incident. Maybe that's the reason that they made the post, as they tried to insinuate that the people who voted to ban that user are responsible for the murder. I thought them not making a shitshow out of their coop (which was the reason why they were only banned for three weeks) was a sign of maturity, but no apparently they thought they were pulling off some 5d chess bullshit. Their fate is all but sealed, but I for one won't be shedding any tears for their loss. Shall we sysoprevoke them as well for good measure? (FairDinkum did have sysop rights until they were blocked via coop, so giving them sysoprevoke won't be extraneous.) Plutocow (talk) 01:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- I got the exact same vibe from when I read their post. "Fighting words" doesn't even begin to cover it. "You have his blood on your hands"?! Egad. And, again, it's not the first time this fool has shown "compassion" to an idiot by putting down the rest of the site. Sysoprevoking is the least we can do. --LeCapraGrande (talk) 01:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well, I never thought FairDinkum would come back. The fucking twat was only banned for 3 weeks. He could easily have come back long ago. I'm also shocked almost beyond words by his ridiculous allegation. All I can say is, "What a fucking arsehole!" Yes, permaban him. Sysoprevoke him. Good riddance! Spud (talk) 12:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- We now have a majority of mods agreeing on permaban, so I will not put FairDinkum in Sysoprevoke. Bongolian (talk) 18:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Four was a majority, five a super-majority. If Duce really feels we did wrong on this they can necro this issue and argue the point. But I'm gonna suspect they won't. KarmaPolice (talk) 23:02, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- We now have a majority of mods agreeing on permaban, so I will not put FairDinkum in Sysoprevoke. Bongolian (talk) 18:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well, I never thought FairDinkum would come back. The fucking twat was only banned for 3 weeks. He could easily have come back long ago. I'm also shocked almost beyond words by his ridiculous allegation. All I can say is, "What a fucking arsehole!" Yes, permaban him. Sysoprevoke him. Good riddance! Spud (talk) 12:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Luigifan18 is back[edit]
Under the account LeCapraGrande (talk · contribs · block · rights · rename) . I mean, look at this edit, it's exactly in Luigifan's style of being long-winded wikicopping interjecting on behalf of other users. Plus, the account uses a number of Luigifan's tics (like "Link-making" in the edit summary) and even admits to having a mysterious connection to Luigifan. Block this obvious sock? Plutocow (talk) 19:50, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- That seems to be the simplest explanation. Bongolian (talk) 20:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- LeCapraGrande's 6th edit was suspiciously on Pokémon, one of Luigi's fixations. Also, Luigifan18 repeatedly used the phrase "Obvious troll is obvious" for undoing edits,[10] whereas LeCapraGrande has twice used the phrase "Obvious vandalism is obvious" in undoing edits.[11] Seems like LeCapraGrande is obviously Luigifan18. Bongolian (talk) 21:15, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think you might be jumping to conclusions. Luigifan and I have talked IRL once or twice. I've lurked around and witnessed Luigifan's downfall before making my account, so I have an idea of what caused them to get cast out. As for the Pokémon page edit and "wikicopping", I saw an opportunity to improve the Pokémon page by adding a link to the subject on another site, and I later saw another user getting frustrated over having their edits reverted and thought I would offer some advice to help them out. Also, "Obvious X is obvious" isn't an original joke. Maybe we both heard it from the same place. --LeCapraGrande (talk) 22:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's obvious to me you're either him, or an impersonator. Chillpilled (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- I should also add that the only reason I know Luigifan IRL is that I saw him working on the site on his iPad one day and struck up a conversation with him, and he would not shut up about his love for RationalWiki and his plans to make it as awesome as possible. That was the only time I really talked with him. I only know him well enough to know that he didn't shoot Brian Thompson, which I figured was relevant to bring up in the discussion about FairDinkum last week. Sorry about any confusion I caused by alluding to him earlier. --LeCapraGrande (talk) 22:28, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- I already knew you didn't go and do that to the CEO, even though there were a handful of odd coincidental similarities. Part of how I knew was because I already noticed you ban evading before you went and insisted you didn't do it. "Link-making" isn't exactly a common phrase. Chillpilled (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- I've gotta say, you're making things awkward by talking to me like I'm somebody else. Yes, we chatted. We may have picked up a few of each other's mannerisms. That doesn't make any similarities anything more than coincidence. And I really don't appreciate being raked over the coals for trying to help someone who clearly hasn't been lurking as long as I have with their issues on the wiki. --LeCapraGrande (talk) 22:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- You weren't being "helpful", though that's par for the course with your interjections. Yeah, some random stranger that you talked to once or twice totally started ranting about RationalWiki to you, and that totally made you want to join the site and from just one or two conversations you somehow picked up all their wiki editing mannerisms, not to mention wanting to defend their honor for some reason. You're not very good at this, I'll say that much. Plutocow (talk) 23:05, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- I've gotta say, you're making things awkward by talking to me like I'm somebody else. Yes, we chatted. We may have picked up a few of each other's mannerisms. That doesn't make any similarities anything more than coincidence. And I really don't appreciate being raked over the coals for trying to help someone who clearly hasn't been lurking as long as I have with their issues on the wiki. --LeCapraGrande (talk) 22:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- I already knew you didn't go and do that to the CEO, even though there were a handful of odd coincidental similarities. Part of how I knew was because I already noticed you ban evading before you went and insisted you didn't do it. "Link-making" isn't exactly a common phrase. Chillpilled (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- I should also add that the only reason I know Luigifan IRL is that I saw him working on the site on his iPad one day and struck up a conversation with him, and he would not shut up about his love for RationalWiki and his plans to make it as awesome as possible. That was the only time I really talked with him. I only know him well enough to know that he didn't shoot Brian Thompson, which I figured was relevant to bring up in the discussion about FairDinkum last week. Sorry about any confusion I caused by alluding to him earlier. --LeCapraGrande (talk) 22:28, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- "We have talked IRL a few times" is just the "it's actually my brother" (when confronted with bad behavior) of excusing sockpuppeting. That's to say, nobody buys it. I'd say block, but if you want to put it to a vote, go ahead. -- Techpriest (talk) 23:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Eh, I shouldn’t have said anything about knowing Luigifan IRL in hindsight, I only realized that it might make you think we're one and the same after the fact. I have no interest in "defending their honor" and said as much in the FairDinkum case. Luigifan was blocked for good reason, I saw it go down. All I was saying was that he didn't shoot the United Healthcare CEO. If I was impersonating Luigifan, I'd be going out of my way to imitate them, not doing the opposite. I would like to be able to help the wiki out, so could we please drop this mistaken identity case? --LeCapraGrande (talk) 23:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- People were clocking you on the Discord even before you made that comment, Luigi. Carthage (talk) 23:43, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- "Clocking me" how? I saw what Luigifan did wrong here, I've been going out of my way to not repeat those mistakes. And if you're going to assume we're the same person and talking in hypotheticals, you didn't really leave him any viable options to contact you when he felt ready to make an appeal to his case. Discord: no. E-mail: no. Talk page: no. What else is there?!? Bah, I'm just sounding more sus, and you seem to have made up your minds, eh? What am I supposed to do to convince you to let me stay? --LeCapraGrande (talk) 23:52, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Yes, you do sound more 'sus'. First of all, because the only person who would reasonably be invested in the idea of Luigifan18 "making an appeal" and being given a way to do that, is Luigifan18.
- "Clocking me" how? I saw what Luigifan did wrong here, I've been going out of my way to not repeat those mistakes. And if you're going to assume we're the same person and talking in hypotheticals, you didn't really leave him any viable options to contact you when he felt ready to make an appeal to his case. Discord: no. E-mail: no. Talk page: no. What else is there?!? Bah, I'm just sounding more sus, and you seem to have made up your minds, eh? What am I supposed to do to convince you to let me stay? --LeCapraGrande (talk) 23:52, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- People were clocking you on the Discord even before you made that comment, Luigi. Carthage (talk) 23:43, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Eh, I shouldn’t have said anything about knowing Luigifan IRL in hindsight, I only realized that it might make you think we're one and the same after the fact. I have no interest in "defending their honor" and said as much in the FairDinkum case. Luigifan was blocked for good reason, I saw it go down. All I was saying was that he didn't shoot the United Healthcare CEO. If I was impersonating Luigifan, I'd be going out of my way to imitate them, not doing the opposite. I would like to be able to help the wiki out, so could we please drop this mistaken identity case? --LeCapraGrande (talk) 23:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's obvious to me you're either him, or an impersonator. Chillpilled (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think you might be jumping to conclusions. Luigifan and I have talked IRL once or twice. I've lurked around and witnessed Luigifan's downfall before making my account, so I have an idea of what caused them to get cast out. As for the Pokémon page edit and "wikicopping", I saw an opportunity to improve the Pokémon page by adding a link to the subject on another site, and I later saw another user getting frustrated over having their edits reverted and thought I would offer some advice to help them out. Also, "Obvious X is obvious" isn't an original joke. Maybe we both heard it from the same place. --LeCapraGrande (talk) 22:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- LeCapraGrande's 6th edit was suspiciously on Pokémon, one of Luigi's fixations. Also, Luigifan18 repeatedly used the phrase "Obvious troll is obvious" for undoing edits,[10] whereas LeCapraGrande has twice used the phrase "Obvious vandalism is obvious" in undoing edits.[11] Seems like LeCapraGrande is obviously Luigifan18. Bongolian (talk) 21:15, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Secondly, you framed this current issue and also your approach to this community as being about "going out of your way" to avoid repeating Luigifan18's mistakes. It's personal and about Luigifan18 to you. Why's that, if you hardly know him? --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 00:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Since the entire community is in consensus, no need to allow him to continue whinging so I blocked him. We can leave this open a little longer but I highly doubt this will be a controversial decision. Plutocow (talk) 00:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see it going any other way either. The last message from him removed what doubt remained for me. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 00:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Blocked from page[edit]
Hi, I've been banned from editing the 4B Movement draft page for three days or so and wish to appeal this ban, please. How do I go about doing that? Thank you. --User:TheJessieKirk — Unsigned, by: TheJessieKirk / talk / contribs
- On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button:
on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄Ask about our holiday specials! 15:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, I've taken a look at it. You were blocked from editing the page due to edit-warring. If a user reverts you, try asking them on the talk page why they did it if you don't understand. Reverting them back and clicking that button again and again on each other is called "edit-warring," and it annoys basically everyone. It's easier for you and for everyone if you guys reach an agreement on the talk page. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄Ask about our holiday specials! 15:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- The page block has been lifted, so this is a speedy archive. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄Ask about our holiday specials! 22:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, I've taken a look at it. You were blocked from editing the page due to edit-warring. If a user reverts you, try asking them on the talk page why they did it if you don't understand. Reverting them back and clicking that button again and again on each other is called "edit-warring," and it annoys basically everyone. It's easier for you and for everyone if you guys reach an agreement on the talk page. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄Ask about our holiday specials! 15:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Luigifan back again?[edit]
See ABigBoxOfSand (talk · contribs · block · rights · rename) . Not only did they register an account almost immediately after the previous sock LeCapraGrande (talk · contribs · block · rights · rename) got banned, despite trying to avoid some of the mistakes that got them caught last time (like using "adding/inserting links" instead of "link-making") it's obvious from their style and fixations that it's the same person. Block this obvious sock? Plutocow (talk) 05:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- It does look suspicious to say the least. Bongolian (talk) 05:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- You'd think a RationalWiki veteran would recognize that making sockpuppets only reduces his chances of ever being unblocked, but apparently not! TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 16:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well, not quite a veteran, he only joined in 2022 (Which is later than I expected), but you get what I mean. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely sure what "fixations" you refer to… I just find places where the writing looks slightly shaky and improve it. I'd like to do more, but I'm still something of a novice and lack confidence in myself. --ABigBoxOfSand (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- So what do you think about Pokémon?
DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW
dictatormoderator 18:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)- It's a nifty franchise with cool ideas. Why? Is it relevant to this somehow? --ABigBoxOfSand (talk) 18:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- So what do you think about Pokémon?
- I'm not entirely sure what "fixations" you refer to… I just find places where the writing looks slightly shaky and improve it. I'd like to do more, but I'm still something of a novice and lack confidence in myself. --ABigBoxOfSand (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well, not quite a veteran, he only joined in 2022 (Which is later than I expected), but you get what I mean. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- You'd think a RationalWiki veteran would recognize that making sockpuppets only reduces his chances of ever being unblocked, but apparently not! TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 16:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
AfD Voting[edit]
- I hugely don't care about the article in question but there was from my POV three issues with it;
- As Spud pointed out, there were a few unknown accounts voting. Perhaps we should tighten up the voting eligibility a little?
- A wafer-thin margin is hardly 'consensus' [52/48% for delete]. I personally feel that 'a vote for change should be clear' and so 'delete' votes should have a supermajority of say, 60% and a minimum amount of voters also.
- There is still no set amount of time a vote should be open. Just think of this if it was in RL; one 'side' could close the polls when they felt enough of 'their people' had turned out. In future, I think there should be a set amount of time for an AfD should be open unless a supermajority of mods agree to close it early [like the article was truly that problematic it needed to be gone right now].
- Thoughts? KarmaPolice (talk) 04:55, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- The newest voter, ChemRail (talk · contribs · block · rights · rename) , signed up a week before the vote occurred. Besides them, Kadashova (talk · contribs · block · rights · rename) (joined 1 December), Anti-eugenicist (talk · contribs · block · rights · rename) (24 September) and Toby (talk · contribs · block · rights · rename) (2 February) everyone else joined 2023 or earlier. Not sure what we would use to cut off the eligibility of the accounts or if it is even an endeavor worth pursuing. Given that many of the voters like EditorialMaster (talk · contribs · block · rights · rename) , Oneandtwo (talk · contribs · block · rights · rename) , and BerlinEditor (talk · contribs · block · rights · rename) are infrequent editors, there may have been some canvassing going on but I'm not sure how we could deal with that (although I might do a test for socking).
- There have been articles deleted by razor thin margins before. Don't know if a minimum voter number is necessary, really, as if no one cares to vote in favor of keeping an article there's no real reason to keep it even if only a couple people voted to delete it.
- In practice, if you feel it's been closed unfairly you can probably bring the issue up (I once undid a deletion because the "consensus" didn't take into account the votes in Merge/Redirect that would've swung the outcome). If a time is set, though, a speedy delete process should still be kept (possibly at least five delete votes with no keep or merge votes after 24 hours) as a number of AfDs are basically just formalities and spending a lot of time discussing them would be a waste of time. Plutocow (talk) 05:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- A bunch of people felt suspicious, so I guess it's as well that's looked into. Though as I wrote in the AfD, I think newcomers would be more likely to vote delete on an article like this anyway, as it's below-average quality and some decent points were made against it. Oldtimers are more likely to be wrapped up in the fight against ban-evading trolls, to the point of being suspicious of anyone who's new and doesn't vote like them. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 06:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thing is, for the most part these are not new users, they're people who have been inactive for months or longer before showing up again to vote in this AfD. From what I understand, this is a topic area that attracts attention on multiple sites as apparently RationalWiki is just one front in a war that spans the entire Internet, so it's likely these people heard of the AfD from elsewhere. Still, if any of these voters would like to give their own perspective here it'd be welcome. Plutocow (talk) 06:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is the first time my tiny bell icon got red and I hope this is nothing disciplinary. I found the article deletion discussions by clicking on "recent changes". Should I not have voted as a newbie editor here? ☣🍆☣ (talk) 09:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- No, you did nothing wrong. Plutocow used a substitute for Wikipedia-style IP checking, by very briefly blocking you and the other 6 editors from one single page, and checking if any of the 7 shared an IP, finding you didn't. Hopefully this thing, now and in the future, won't scare off editors; this way of checking for sockpuppets may look unfriendly to newcomers. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 09:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is the first time my tiny bell icon got red and I hope this is nothing disciplinary. I found the article deletion discussions by clicking on "recent changes". Should I not have voted as a newbie editor here? ☣🍆☣ (talk) 09:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thing is, for the most part these are not new users, they're people who have been inactive for months or longer before showing up again to vote in this AfD. From what I understand, this is a topic area that attracts attention on multiple sites as apparently RationalWiki is just one front in a war that spans the entire Internet, so it's likely these people heard of the AfD from elsewhere. Still, if any of these voters would like to give their own perspective here it'd be welcome. Plutocow (talk) 06:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- A bunch of people felt suspicious, so I guess it's as well that's looked into. Though as I wrote in the AfD, I think newcomers would be more likely to vote delete on an article like this anyway, as it's below-average quality and some decent points were made against it. Oldtimers are more likely to be wrapped up in the fight against ban-evading trolls, to the point of being suspicious of anyone who's new and doesn't vote like them. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 06:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- On the three points.
- Tightening requirements could be done to different levels. If you were to go for autoconfirmed status (like the lowest page protection level), that would make sense if you were concerned about vandal throw-away accounts (like the 5 Mikey socks that showed up and were quickly reverted anyway when they voted, similarly to past incidents). Such a change wouldn't have changed anything in this vote, as all 7 editors Plutocow looked into are such. If you were to make AfD votes sysop-only, though, then only 5 of the 7 editors would've remained.
- Changing the standard could be discussed. I recall the point having been made before that unlike on Wikipedia, here it's not really consensus at present but rather the vote of the mob that counts.
- Could be good to set some standard here, I agree it's bad when it changes too arbitrarily from vote to vote. I agree with Plutocow that in case of overwhelming support for an action, it should be possible to close earlier.
- --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 06:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
I think another thing worth mentioning, and we can maybe verify this by the fossil record, is that it seems an inactive user would come in to vote the moment the vote struck a tie to ensure that “no” always had a majority. It strikes me that this is maybe a vulnerability with our system. If there was a coordinated effort to use our own community standards against us, this would be the way to do it. Establish users well in advance and use the standards of mobocracy to implement the changes you desire. I think we need to prioritize above of all else the maintenance of this website’s ability to serve its stated mission. We document the cranks, attack science denial, and identify pseudoscience. I think we let elaborate trolling campaigns and “parody” accounts undermine our critical thinking, not in the appearance of being gullible as which had been alleged, but by being so fearful of appearing gullible we forget to primarily rely on checking the facts. We have to be on guard to the possibility that coordinated action from cranks can be used to co-opt this site.
I predict if we put our voting standards up to a vote, we will get outnumbered again. I don’t think I am undoubetdly correct with this, I am speculating on a hypothesis. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 10:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I was pinged above. I voted to delete that behavioural genetics article and found the argument perfectly valid. Just today, though, there were two other times somebody made odd moves. First, supposedly the Russian troll Anatoly Karlin personally, and now some IP nominated a guy in "normie" IQ research.[12] Problem is, the latter article really does not seem very missional but it's still pretty suspicious.
I think it's actually most likely that some contributor was butthurt about the article being deleted and might now try to start multiple frivolous deletions to discredit that process. I would be careful. Could someone perhaps restrict new AfDs to autoconfirmed users for a few days? Kadashova (talk) 12:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
I support time limits for AfDs. The main change I would make to our process is keeping an article if keep+merge/redirect outnumbers delete.-Flandres (talk) 17:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think we should just restrict AfD voting to sysops only. It would solve basically all of these issues.
DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW
dictatormoderator 19:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)- I am a bit wary of reactionary moves to restrict voting franchise. In particular, sysop-locking it would mean that there are users eligible to vote in penalty votes but not deletion votes (A somebody. for instance). It's probably a good thing that this gives newer users an ability to participate in our processes, even if there is occasionally an issue with a suspicious-looking AfD. Plutocow (talk) 19:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Autoconfirmed-locking is a bit more reasonable in that autoconfirmed rights are really not that difficult to obtain. However, if we're going to establish that a vote must take longer than a couple days then people can earn autoconfirmed during the course of the vote and the only things that would realistically accomplish are banning BoNs from voting, stopping driveby spamming (which already gets reverted anyway) and preventing any accounts created in the last couple days of the vote from swinging the outcome. Plutocow (talk) 19:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- My main concern with how that AfD was conducted was that after a period very close voting, voting was closed less than 8-hours after a single tie-breaking vote. I think that there should be some minimum reasonable amount of time (say, 3 or 7 days) from the last valid vote before the vote can be closed. Bongolian (talk) 20:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- 7 days is nuts. I wouldn't say more than 24 hours if any mandated time at all.
DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW
dictatormoderator 20:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)- The problem with this particular case is; A) it clearly looked like brigading, but B) that article nonetheless was shit, full of lots of non-missional stuff and online drama. The trolls nonetheless did motivate me to salvage some things from the article and put it in the Jonathan Kane article. (Only a paragraph, because that's all that mattered IMHO.) BobJohnson (talk) 21:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- 24 Hours is insane. We've already had incidents with AfD's being closed after 24 hours with only having a total of 3 votes. Bongolian has the right idea. 5 days should do the trick, but maybe make a site announcement when a page is being voted for deletion. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 16:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- 7 days is nuts. I wouldn't say more than 24 hours if any mandated time at all.
- My main concern with how that AfD was conducted was that after a period very close voting, voting was closed less than 8-hours after a single tie-breaking vote. I think that there should be some minimum reasonable amount of time (say, 3 or 7 days) from the last valid vote before the vote can be closed. Bongolian (talk) 20:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Autoconfirmed-locking is a bit more reasonable in that autoconfirmed rights are really not that difficult to obtain. However, if we're going to establish that a vote must take longer than a couple days then people can earn autoconfirmed during the course of the vote and the only things that would realistically accomplish are banning BoNs from voting, stopping driveby spamming (which already gets reverted anyway) and preventing any accounts created in the last couple days of the vote from swinging the outcome. Plutocow (talk) 19:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am a bit wary of reactionary moves to restrict voting franchise. In particular, sysop-locking it would mean that there are users eligible to vote in penalty votes but not deletion votes (A somebody. for instance). It's probably a good thing that this gives newer users an ability to participate in our processes, even if there is occasionally an issue with a suspicious-looking AfD. Plutocow (talk) 19:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
If any changes to the AfD process are to be made, someone is going to have to lay them out so they can be voted on. A reminder that any changes to CS need a two-thirds majority to pass (and have their own requirements to vote of course, of which only two of the above seven users I mentioned would pass). Plutocow (talk) 08:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- What are the requirements for who gets to vote on and for community standards changes? — Unsigned, by: Carthage sock / talk / contribs
- First off, I have nothing against any user who voted in the AfD in question. So sorry for any inferred slights on my part.
- 1a. I support 'autoconfirmed' for voting in AfDs, and tightening it a little to be autoconfirmed at the point where the AfD opens. I think this cuts the best line between keeping the electorate as large as possible but keeping the chances of throwaway accounts being created to simply participate in a particular AfD.
- 1b. I would also suggest that sysops should be the threshold for nominating AfDs.
- 2. 'This is the way we've done it before' is not a reasonable argument in this case. I suggest the 'threshold' for AfDs should be 60% for 'delete' and a quarum of 10. I would also add that all 'Merge' votes will count as 'Keep' because the offending page does need to remain until it's fully merged [which might be some time as somebody will need to do it].
- 3. I suggest all AfDs should remain for 14 days. However, I get that at times the mob is baying for page blood and would be okay with a kind of 'early closing' after 7 days if 80% is for delete and also meets the 10 person quarum.
- KarmaPolice (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't see the point in restricting nomination of AfDs more than votes in them. The only harm from a "bad" nomination anyway is wasting time. As for votes, I don't really like the idea of restricting that beyond autoconfirmed, but autoconfirmed could be reasonable for votes in general to filter out vandal activity.
- Pointing out how it currently is wasn't meant as an argument against change, merely saying that what went down is right by the current rules. Personally I don't favor any particular percentage if we change this.
- On "Merge/redirect", not so fast. Keep in mind that these are two ideas, and it matters which one people have in mind if we're to count it sensibly with keep or with delete. If people support merging, then they support keeping something, but if they purely support a redirect, then they support deletion and creating a redirect. Two separate headings may be better in the future for clarity, maybe place "Merge" under "Keep" and "Redirect" under "Delete"?
- On time, I think it makes sense to fit the time to the engagement. Like some suggested, requiring some time after the last valid vote. E.g. a minimum 7 days, or some number (2-5) after the last vote if that's longer. But also an option to close early, maybe after 24 hours, if there's at least (5? 7? 10?) votes, and an overwhelming majority -- and 80% or 4/5 sounds reasonable for that. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 20:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Another thing to consider is that not all "merge" votes are equal, as they can range from wanting to merge the entire article to wanting to salvage only a couple sentences. Plutocow (talk) 21:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I think the votes should be 'Delete/Redirect' and 'Keep/Merge'. If the latter consensus is for merging, then after the content has been merged/salvaged it can be AfD'd again.
- Another thing to consider is that not all "merge" votes are equal, as they can range from wanting to merge the entire article to wanting to salvage only a couple sentences. Plutocow (talk) 21:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- On time, I think it makes sense to fit the time to the engagement. Like some suggested, requiring some time after the last valid vote. E.g. a minimum 7 days, or some number (2-5) after the last vote if that's longer. But also an option to close early, maybe after 24 hours, if there's at least (5? 7? 10?) votes, and an overwhelming majority -- and 80% or 4/5 sounds reasonable for that. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 20:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was thinking that if we time-limited the votes it meant we could [possibly] automate it's closing - ie put a time limit of 336 hours from this time. If we did it from x days from the last vote it's quite possible it hung around for many months as it gets close to cut-date but then one person votes, and then the clock resets. I am all in favour of trying to get as many folks to vote in these things as possible, but in this case I think it would be too generous. KarmaPolice (talk) 08:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I oppose merging the "Merge/Redirect" option into Keep and Delete, there's at least one AfD that had to be prolonged due to there initially not being a clear consensus between merge and redirect; those kinds of situations would almost certainly become a lot more common with that change and it would just slow the process down. In addition, that suggestion lacks some of the nuance that the Merge/Redirect option has; someone who wants to keep some but not all of the article's content on another page wouldn't have an easy place to vote under the proposed system. It'd probably be better to just make sure that delete has a majority (as opposed to just a plurality) in order to succeed. Plutocow (talk) 08:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- You can't 'redirect' without delete. Stuff to be 'merged' requires the offending page to remain until said content salvaging is done. There have been AfDs where I have voted 'Keep' merely on the basis someone needs to do the merging before it's nuked. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- It isn't always that black and white, since in practice "Merge/Redirect" is a catch-all for any option besides full delete and full keep that still has a stake in the result (as opposed to the Goat vote which doesn't count). It's better to have a third option open than to artificially force everyone into two options. Plutocow (talk) 02:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would say there should be a time limit. I would also suggest that we should consider whether is a simple majority would be enough for delete. Perhaps we should set the delete point at 60 or 70 percent of votes. On the other hand I must admit that I am usually biased on the "improve rather than delete" side of arguments so that may simply be my prejudice.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- It isn't always that black and white, since in practice "Merge/Redirect" is a catch-all for any option besides full delete and full keep that still has a stake in the result (as opposed to the Goat vote which doesn't count). It's better to have a third option open than to artificially force everyone into two options. Plutocow (talk) 02:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- You can't 'redirect' without delete. Stuff to be 'merged' requires the offending page to remain until said content salvaging is done. There have been AfDs where I have voted 'Keep' merely on the basis someone needs to do the merging before it's nuked. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I oppose merging the "Merge/Redirect" option into Keep and Delete, there's at least one AfD that had to be prolonged due to there initially not being a clear consensus between merge and redirect; those kinds of situations would almost certainly become a lot more common with that change and it would just slow the process down. In addition, that suggestion lacks some of the nuance that the Merge/Redirect option has; someone who wants to keep some but not all of the article's content on another page wouldn't have an easy place to vote under the proposed system. It'd probably be better to just make sure that delete has a majority (as opposed to just a plurality) in order to succeed. Plutocow (talk) 08:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was thinking that if we time-limited the votes it meant we could [possibly] automate it's closing - ie put a time limit of 336 hours from this time. If we did it from x days from the last vote it's quite possible it hung around for many months as it gets close to cut-date but then one person votes, and then the clock resets. I am all in favour of trying to get as many folks to vote in these things as possible, but in this case I think it would be too generous. KarmaPolice (talk) 08:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Just raise the threshold for voting on AFDs. Doing minimum times or 60% rules would just make AFDs drag out to be a month or longer. You really want to have AFDs that last that long? DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW
dictator moderator 20:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think anybody suggested a month.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 21:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well, the proposed 10-voter minimum requirement would cause many AfDs to drag on or never get resolved at all. Plutocow (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I disagree with ten voter. I would say - one week, autoconfirmed, 60% majority. In point of fact the 60% would only really make a difference in edge cases with a lot of votes - like the vote which sparked this discussion.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- If an AfD can't get ten people interested enough to vote, then it is hardly a mobocracy, is it? And they wouldn't last 'that long' if they had time-limits put on how long they could be open for. KarmaPolice (talk) 08:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not profoundly opposed to ten people. But I'm not sure why "ten people" would a mobocracy make - but, for example, "seven people" wouldn't.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- (ec)The ten-voter requirement is the kind of officious bureaucracy that a mobocracy is meant to avoid. Realistically, if people are not interested enough to vote that's not a reason to keep. The results of such a change are ridiculous, too; under the proposed rules a vote of 9-0 is not enough to delete but 6-4 is. Leaving AfDs unresolved also leaves the issue of when to renominate them, since if delete was winning they'd have to try again but could repeatedly fail to get a quorum, wasting everyone's time. All things considered, the ten-voter requirement is a terrible idea. Plutocow (talk) 09:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- It could be '60% threshold with quorum of 10 or 80% with no quorum'. However, in the latter case perhaps mods should be allowed to veto an delete? KarmaPolice (talk) 09:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- The current system isn't nearly problematic enough to warrant such convoluted rules. Plutocow (talk) 10:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- One 'or' is convoluted? Fine, what about a 65% threshold for delete, no quorum? KarmaPolice (talk) 11:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- The current system isn't nearly problematic enough to warrant such convoluted rules. Plutocow (talk) 10:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- It could be '60% threshold with quorum of 10 or 80% with no quorum'. However, in the latter case perhaps mods should be allowed to veto an delete? KarmaPolice (talk) 09:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- If an AfD can't get ten people interested enough to vote, then it is hardly a mobocracy, is it? And they wouldn't last 'that long' if they had time-limits put on how long they could be open for. KarmaPolice (talk) 08:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I disagree with ten voter. I would say - one week, autoconfirmed, 60% majority. In point of fact the 60% would only really make a difference in edge cases with a lot of votes - like the vote which sparked this discussion.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well, the proposed 10-voter minimum requirement would cause many AfDs to drag on or never get resolved at all. Plutocow (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
From these propositions in general, it seems you think there's a problem in the form of too much deletion taking place. The percentages and quorum ideas, all such variations, would all have the effect of making deletion more difficult, after all. Some would agree on making it so, but other members don't think that there's a general problem of too much deletion taking place. Personally I've only been concerned with too much risk of "random" fluctuation in outcome.
I don't think RW members in general would be able to agree on more complex rules currently. In large part because of what I mentioned above. But some options could find greater support and fruitfully be voted on. And we don't need to decide everything at once, it's fine to revise the rules a little now if that's all we do and see later if more is needed.
Currently, from the above discussion I would propose voting on these ideas for AfD rules:
- Require autoconfirmed for votes (except "Goat").
- Require autoconfirmed for nomination. (Some may vote yes to #1 and no to #2 here because this doesn't protect the voting process, and BoNs sometimes make good nominations.)
- Require 60% rather than merely above 50% for the outcome.
But more discussion could lead to more ideas which a larger number of people may favor. On minimum time etc. Personally I think that "speedy close" should also be possible, because there are situations where it makes sense to end an AfD in even a day or less. Maybe we could have a minimum time, plus the possibility to speedily close, and then if anyone objects it's reopened with the minimum time? --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 13:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not really. The example cited was too much of an edge case and the most generous interpretation of it's closing-time was utterly arbitrary. There has been at least one AfD that got closed [and nuked] so quickly I didn't get time to actually comment on it [which I bitched about at the time]; 'Balanced_Budget_Amendment'. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- That AFD had been open for something like 9 days at that point. It was tiresome, and I asked about closing it. That’s it. I’m sorry I didn’t have an actual timer running the moment that last person voted.
DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW
dictatormoderator 14:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)- I assume you're referring to the former, not the latter because that was open [at best] 3 days. I remember I was travelling home from work late, noting 'this requires reading' and when I went back the next day it had already been killed. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, I was talking about the Willoughby one. I don’t feel like I did anything wrong by closing that one.
DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW
dictatormoderator 17:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)- Well, if folks feel that actually putting in rules for this is too much, how about we whip up a little 'guidance sheet' for folks to follow when doing AfDs? [stuff like how long is 'long enough' for it, the suggested thresholds and so on]. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, I was talking about the Willoughby one. I don’t feel like I did anything wrong by closing that one.
- I assume you're referring to the former, not the latter because that was open [at best] 3 days. I remember I was travelling home from work late, noting 'this requires reading' and when I went back the next day it had already been killed. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- That AFD had been open for something like 9 days at that point. It was tiresome, and I asked about closing it. That’s it. I’m sorry I didn’t have an actual timer running the moment that last person voted.
Wikipedia links[edit]
There are as far as I'm aware no prohibitions on linking to Wikipedia in the Help pages. I link to Wikipedia myself as to many of us, but I try to be judicious about it. I would like to hear people's opinions on @Ānvīkṣikī edits with regard to Wikipedia links. Particularly on the Hitler page.[13] Ānvīkṣikī also made quite a few Wikipedia links on the Indo-European languages page,[14]] which to me seemed more germane. Bongolian (talk) 05:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree that his WP links in the Indo-European languages seemed reasonable (I was the one who patrolled his edits there), but those added to the Hitler page go too far. Perhaps just a little advice is needed. JumboWhales (talk) 06:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hey There @JumboWhales, Namaskāram/ନମସ୍କାରମ୍/नमस्कारम्! Thanks For Educating Me On The Matter Of Adding Wikilinks... (Which I Feel, Are Absolutely Necessary, Given The Dearth Of Articles Of So Many Things [& Especially That Of My India, Like Places, Provinces, Languages, Persons, etc...]), Such As In Recently-Edited Article Adolf Hitler & Previous Articles (viz. Sanskrit, Indo-European languages, Aryan, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, Savitri Devi, Swastika, etc...; With Adding More Info, Languages, Full Names, etc...).
As For The Said Latest Edited Article Adolf Hitler, I Felt That 'Twas Quintessential To Wikilink Places, Stores & Provinces Of India... Regards, Ānvīkṣikī (talk) 06:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)- It's not really that we have a "dearth" of these articles, we don't want these articles. We are not an encyclopedia and we are not trying to compete with Wikipedia. In consequence we don't want an article on every language, province and person - no matter how notable.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I personally see RW as an 'encyclopaedia addendum' - as in, a supplementary volume to sit beside WP for those times where WP's coverage is either missing, too short and/or has readability issues. Therefore, if decent material already exists it's better to simply link to that rather than re-make the wheel [most likely worse] for RW. There's also 'missional' to consider; a lot of WP's content we don't want to replicate because it's not relevant to RW's mission [stated on our frontpage] - for example, we'd only cover a sports personality if they'd gone into crankery. However, I would say that we're not real strict on this one - because if nothing else, sometimes those pages are needed to help understanding other things and as I said above, sometimes WP's entry is unreadable or non-existent.
Why doesn't RW want to be an encyclopaedia? The most pragmatic answer is we lack the numbers to even do it quarter-arsed. And we've watched folks flounder trying to remake the wheel and fail due to simple lack of human-power to even approach WP's depth and breadth of content. However, 'limited interest' works like Bulbapedia and Investopedia have done pretty well with their limited userbase. So the discouraging of non-missional pages is an attempt to divert users into applying their efforts into missional stuff. Which in the OP's case, I suspect is many because this place is pretty American-centric and I suspect there's loads of Indian cranks, weirdos, conspiracy theories and general crap which are crying out to be covered - for example, Akhand Bharat has literally one line and two pictures! KarmaPolice (talk) 09:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I personally see RW as an 'encyclopaedia addendum' - as in, a supplementary volume to sit beside WP for those times where WP's coverage is either missing, too short and/or has readability issues. Therefore, if decent material already exists it's better to simply link to that rather than re-make the wheel [most likely worse] for RW. There's also 'missional' to consider; a lot of WP's content we don't want to replicate because it's not relevant to RW's mission [stated on our frontpage] - for example, we'd only cover a sports personality if they'd gone into crankery. However, I would say that we're not real strict on this one - because if nothing else, sometimes those pages are needed to help understanding other things and as I said above, sometimes WP's entry is unreadable or non-existent.
- It's not really that we have a "dearth" of these articles, we don't want these articles. We are not an encyclopedia and we are not trying to compete with Wikipedia. In consequence we don't want an article on every language, province and person - no matter how notable.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hey There @JumboWhales, Namaskāram/ନମସ୍କାରମ୍/नमस्कारम्! Thanks For Educating Me On The Matter Of Adding Wikilinks... (Which I Feel, Are Absolutely Necessary, Given The Dearth Of Articles Of So Many Things [& Especially That Of My India, Like Places, Provinces, Languages, Persons, etc...]), Such As In Recently-Edited Article Adolf Hitler & Previous Articles (viz. Sanskrit, Indo-European languages, Aryan, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, Savitri Devi, Swastika, etc...; With Adding More Info, Languages, Full Names, etc...).
Just to bring this discussion back to the issue I raised: it was links to WP, not the scope of RW. In the case of Indo-European languages, the WP links seemed mostly relevant to the article (example languages that we're not going to cover). In the case of Hitler, the WP links seemed entirely tangential (e.g., cities in India). Bongolian (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hey @Bongolian, Thank Ya For Actually Covering My Point & Concern... & Someone Rather Should Tell The Same Thing To That @DuceMoosolini!!! सधन्यवाद् 🙏🏾... Ānvīkṣikī (talk) 03:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- The user was edit warring at Adolf Hitler and Indo-European languages , despite their insistence that they have no intention to edit war after their last round of edit-warring over at Sanskrit and Indo-European languages back in December. Lavalizard101 (talk) 14:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I protected that page as well. If I hadn't reverted and protected pages involved already I'd have blocked Ānvīkṣikī for serial edit warring, but consider myself invovled so don't want to overstep. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- To bring a Wikipedia users perspective into this, if this was reported at ANI (the board for ppl to report stuff that is not vandalism or edit-warring that may need admin attention), some admins would probably warn the user for overlinking. For example do we really need to link every name, language and location? as Ānvīkṣikī does in this edit where he links Black sea and Balkans? To me it appears Ānvīkṣikī is over-eager to wikilink things. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- My view on whether to Wikilink is if something is directly relevant to understanding the article and neither likely to be obvious to the casual reader nor covered by RW, it could merit having a WP link. If something is tangential to the article and/or obvious, then it's a bad candidate for a WP link. Bongolian (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I mostly agree with Bongolian. After all, if one is confused by something unfamiliar in a RW article it's easy to just...google it. I'm not on a quest to eliminate all Wikipedia links but I don't see the point of linking to Wikipedia either.-Flandres (talk) 21:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm less inclined with saying "google it" than I used to be, particularly since Google has been experimenting with AI as their top result. Currently, it seems to be less bad than elsewhere since they put the links from which the AI response was derived adjacent to the AI response, but who knows how long that will last. Duckduckgo (Bing/Microsoft-derived) seems to be AI free at the moment. Bongolian (talk) 22:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am also of the opinion that we should only link to WP if it really adds something important to the article.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know. What about BLPs or concept that would not be missional for us to cover, but that are nonetheless useful for the average reader to look into? I think there should be wikilinks and also some select external links as long as it improves user experience. Kadashova (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am also of the opinion that we should only link to WP if it really adds something important to the article.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm less inclined with saying "google it" than I used to be, particularly since Google has been experimenting with AI as their top result. Currently, it seems to be less bad than elsewhere since they put the links from which the AI response was derived adjacent to the AI response, but who knows how long that will last. Duckduckgo (Bing/Microsoft-derived) seems to be AI free at the moment. Bongolian (talk) 22:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I mostly agree with Bongolian. After all, if one is confused by something unfamiliar in a RW article it's easy to just...google it. I'm not on a quest to eliminate all Wikipedia links but I don't see the point of linking to Wikipedia either.-Flandres (talk) 21:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- My view on whether to Wikilink is if something is directly relevant to understanding the article and neither likely to be obvious to the casual reader nor covered by RW, it could merit having a WP link. If something is tangential to the article and/or obvious, then it's a bad candidate for a WP link. Bongolian (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
There is also the problem of a lot of articles using Wikipedia as references, which is only encouraged by {{wpa}}
. Inline links are preferable to that Plutocow (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- One reason I would prefer a reduced number of WP links is the we should really want to keep visitors here. Every WP link encourages them to go somewhere else. If the topic of real interest to us we should have an article on it. If it's not of real interest to us then we should think very carefully about suggesting that visitors go elsewhere. So the fact that we can make a WP link certainly does not mean we should make such a link.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
User:Zachary353[edit]
A BoN accused @Zachary353 of being banned user Kenneth DeMyer (User:GiuocoPiano, etc.) — see User talk:Zachary353. Any care to confirm or refute this? Bongolian (talk) 19:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am a big believer in innocent until proven guilty. What did I do that the banned user did? All I have done is engage in cordial conversation in your "saloon" and I gave support for the reasonable positions I took. If that is a crime at your website, then something is seriously wrong. I hope you don't act this way towards all your new users. Zachary353 (talk) 19:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Out of curiosity, Ken - what level of evidence would be acceptable to prove you are you? KarmaPolice (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- With all due respect, if people act like wikicops or act like this website is a police state, then the best course of action is "Don't talk to the police". When I said I am a big believer in innocent until proven guilty, I meant it. Zachary353 (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Out of curiosity, Ken - what level of evidence would be acceptable to prove you are you? KarmaPolice (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
It was indeed Ken. Plutocow (talk) 06:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- [le shock]. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- This type of situation would be resolved a lot quicker if we had some sort of checkuser; Sadly, I think only Trent has the power to add it, and as it stands, he's currently as good as gone. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 15:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'd favor adding it, not sure how strong opposition is nowadays (though some are surely against it). Keep in mind that Ken and other repeat vandals are IP-hoppers, so in large part we'd be mapping and blocking VPNs popular with vandals if we adopt checkuser.
- This type of situation would be resolved a lot quicker if we had some sort of checkuser; Sadly, I think only Trent has the power to add it, and as it stands, he's currently as good as gone. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 15:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- On the technical side, checkuser can be added by anyone with server access. Trent is no longer relevant, hasn't been for years. Tim and David also have access but don't want to work on configuring/updating our software anymore. Cosmikdebris has access, but isn't really up for it presently. I may get access too, I've delayed in talking more to David about it but will do so. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 15:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Adding checkuser will probably also drive some legitimate users to VPN. There are already inner-circle MAGA (Heritage Foundation) threats to dox and target Wikipedia editors.[15] I'm not convinced that checkuser would be an overall benefit to RW. There's at least one quality VPN out there with a free mode. Bongolian (talk) 16:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I mean, checkuser in Wikipedia is exclusive to only a few people with a very specific, very powerful role, so I don't see why, should it be implemented in RW, we couldn't limit it to just Moderators (Or a specific group of trustworthy moderators and former moderators, to be extra sure). TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 17:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- If it were done, yeah it would need to be limited to some group, and "all techs" seems like a bad idea (given past issues with one or another tech doing unethical things). Maybe it could be set up so that those who are currently both moderators and techs get checkuser access? Other ideas are also possible, like appointing such people from the pool of mod + tech people and then they keep it as long as trusted. --ApooftGnegiol (talk)18:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- There I think I read somewhere that was at least one untrustworthy moderator before I joined RW in 2014. It's probably less likely that such a thing could happen nowadays, but who knows. I would be more trusting of board members or a moderator/tech designated by a board member. Bongolian (talk) 19:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- If it were done, yeah it would need to be limited to some group, and "all techs" seems like a bad idea (given past issues with one or another tech doing unethical things). Maybe it could be set up so that those who are currently both moderators and techs get checkuser access? Other ideas are also possible, like appointing such people from the pool of mod + tech people and then they keep it as long as trusted. --ApooftGnegiol (talk)18:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I mean, checkuser in Wikipedia is exclusive to only a few people with a very specific, very powerful role, so I don't see why, should it be implemented in RW, we couldn't limit it to just Moderators (Or a specific group of trustworthy moderators and former moderators, to be extra sure). TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 17:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Adding checkuser will probably also drive some legitimate users to VPN. There are already inner-circle MAGA (Heritage Foundation) threats to dox and target Wikipedia editors.[15] I'm not convinced that checkuser would be an overall benefit to RW. There's at least one quality VPN out there with a free mode. Bongolian (talk) 16:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- On the technical side, checkuser can be added by anyone with server access. Trent is no longer relevant, hasn't been for years. Tim and David also have access but don't want to work on configuring/updating our software anymore. Cosmikdebris has access, but isn't really up for it presently. I may get access too, I've delayed in talking more to David about it but will do so. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 15:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
The issue with checkuser is it's unclear what purpose it serves. The recurring trolls like Ken, Morris, Mikey etc. all clearly know how to use VPNs and for those that don't we already have a method of checking if they have the same IP. Plutocow (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- The main thing I can possibly see perhaps checking is if to see if a user is using a VPN / open proxy / etc. It depends on how far "the mob" wants to go with general spam prevention, how much this in practice helps persistent trolls, as well as the practicalities of implementation. I know on Wikipedia, in practice, VPNs and open proxies are pretty much blocked through and through (though I don't know if this is "by design"). Personally, I could see designing something where you have to be autoconfirmed+ or sysop+ to edit using a VPN. There's just too many people out their using VPNs for abusive purposes. But RW is far smaller than Wikipedia and "doing things manually" seems to work "okay", the persistent assholes with way too much time on their hands out there are a bit of an annoyance of course. BobJohnson (talk) 21:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is an issue that has been discussed a few times, and I think the idea was we don't ban Tor/VPNs because in certain countries that's the only way to access the internet without getting in trouble? Plutocow (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- If the policy is to treat those using VPNs etc. the same as those who don't, then I'd agree that checkuser probably won't make much difference with the more dedicated vandals. There's basically two levels of dealing with such if you do, and apart from blocking VPNs etc. outright, you could just consider their use as a factor when you're dealing with a suspicious account.
- This is an issue that has been discussed a few times, and I think the idea was we don't ban Tor/VPNs because in certain countries that's the only way to access the internet without getting in trouble? Plutocow (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- The other thing that checkuser can help with is generally identifying IP ranges used by users, as some ban evaders who are less devoted to it could be blocked that way if you're willing to do it. I personally think that moderately-sized range blocks for a limited time are fine in principle, when it helps. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 10:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- TOR/VPN should only be used for sysops for anonymity/safety reasons. Mikemikev has been using VPN/proxies for years creating impersonations of users here and elsewhere and spoofing their usernames. The accounts are quickly blocked but such drama sometimes spills out onto other Wikis, recent case example [16]. I would support autoconfirmed+ or sysop+ to only edit using a VPN. A lot of Mikemikev's activity is throwaway accounts where he will make 1 edit and then dump the account. If VPN was somehow disabled for new users he wouldn't be able to keep creating new impersonations. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are we seriously considering restricting VPN usage to sysops only? You all know we struggle with a stagnant userbase. Plus, as Pluto mentioned, there are entire areas of the globe where access to the internet is hampered without VPN usage. The fact that a few trolls are persistent nuisances does not, I think, outweigh the privacy and opsec concerns that restricting VPN usage by editors would bring. Plus, there is the matter of diversity of experience (and therefore perspective), which is something RationalWiki also struggles with. We have fewer female editors than male, and most of our editors also come from areas of the world where access to the internet is relatively free. Restricting VPN usage to sysops only would go a long way towards hampering any differing perspectives that potential users from those areas of the world where VPN usage is not just good sense, but a necessity, might bring. Carthage (talk) 10:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agree with Carthage. Plus, will point out that there shall be people within said advanced nations who very well might have reasons to use VPNs. For example, folks who for various 'reasons' do not want RW to show up in their internet histories [like say, having a cultist family with no boundaries] and/or are concerned about being doxxed. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- An alternative is to start using check-users and publicly post case reports on this website. It would be interesting to see a list of all the IPS and socks Mike has been using. People are misusing this website and getting away with it with spoof accounts and impersonations; over at Wikipedia this rarely happens because users are scared of the the public check-user reports. Over at Wikipedia there are SPI files going back years and even long-term abuse profiles for problematic users. If this is not agreed upon, at a minimum at least create ban lists or case profiles for such trolls. For example Mike has one over at Wikipedia [17]. There isn't enough going on here to stop long-term abuse. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agree with Carthage. Plus, will point out that there shall be people within said advanced nations who very well might have reasons to use VPNs. For example, folks who for various 'reasons' do not want RW to show up in their internet histories [like say, having a cultist family with no boundaries] and/or are concerned about being doxxed. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are we seriously considering restricting VPN usage to sysops only? You all know we struggle with a stagnant userbase. Plus, as Pluto mentioned, there are entire areas of the globe where access to the internet is hampered without VPN usage. The fact that a few trolls are persistent nuisances does not, I think, outweigh the privacy and opsec concerns that restricting VPN usage by editors would bring. Plus, there is the matter of diversity of experience (and therefore perspective), which is something RationalWiki also struggles with. We have fewer female editors than male, and most of our editors also come from areas of the world where access to the internet is relatively free. Restricting VPN usage to sysops only would go a long way towards hampering any differing perspectives that potential users from those areas of the world where VPN usage is not just good sense, but a necessity, might bring. Carthage (talk) 10:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- TOR/VPN should only be used for sysops for anonymity/safety reasons. Mikemikev has been using VPN/proxies for years creating impersonations of users here and elsewhere and spoofing their usernames. The accounts are quickly blocked but such drama sometimes spills out onto other Wikis, recent case example [16]. I would support autoconfirmed+ or sysop+ to only edit using a VPN. A lot of Mikemikev's activity is throwaway accounts where he will make 1 edit and then dump the account. If VPN was somehow disabled for new users he wouldn't be able to keep creating new impersonations. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- The other thing that checkuser can help with is generally identifying IP ranges used by users, as some ban evaders who are less devoted to it could be blocked that way if you're willing to do it. I personally think that moderately-sized range blocks for a limited time are fine in principle, when it helps. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 10:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Would changing our checkuser policy increase the risk of getting subpoenaed either for direct activities on RW, or for unrelated activities that involve the same IP address elsewhere? If this is the case, then I think that's reason alone not to change the policy. Bongolian (talk) 18:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Mikemikev's socks never last beyond a few edits since he is obviously never here in good faith so I don't think he is enough of a problem to justify checkuser. Plutocow (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, because checkuser is an interface to data Mediawiki already stores. Hiding IP addresses is more so that techs can't pull any tricks and to make it practically impossible unless you're David/Tmtoulouse/Tim Starling (all three of whom have to my knowledge never bothered to do so as it's a huge pain in the ass). If we got subpoena'd, anyone could obtain the IP attached to any edit, it's something the Mediawiki software will always store. -- Techpriest (talk) 20:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm starting to come around on the issue of checkuser, honestly. Maybe we should have it.
DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW
dictatormoderator 20:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)- I've been saying this for years. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 20:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm starting to come around on the issue of checkuser, honestly. Maybe we should have it.
- No, because checkuser is an interface to data Mediawiki already stores. Hiding IP addresses is more so that techs can't pull any tricks and to make it practically impossible unless you're David/Tmtoulouse/Tim Starling (all three of whom have to my knowledge never bothered to do so as it's a huge pain in the ass). If we got subpoena'd, anyone could obtain the IP attached to any edit, it's something the Mediawiki software will always store. -- Techpriest (talk) 20:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Checkuser[edit]
I think we should have a serious conversation about whether and how to implement checkuser on this wiki. I think it's about time. DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW
dictator moderator 20:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Watch the old guard coming out of their graves to mass vote against this... Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 12:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- The problem with CheckUser is that it's not some magical cure-all tool that people seem to think it is. It is more a tool akin to a flamethrower: yes, it can help with some issues on the Wiki. But it comes with the burden of the fact that those with access to is can easily abuse it if there isn't a stringent system to prevent its abuse. Wikipedia, for example, has strict guidelines on when a Checkuser lookup can and should be performed. But unless RationalWiki's community is ready to have such a stringent system in place, then it risks the "Conservapedia problem" where it suddenly becomes a system of "Shoot first, ask questions later." Further complicating this decision might be (as in, I'm not really sure if it's true anymore, been a long time since I cared to know) that the RW Foundation is the sole power to enable changes like that to the MediaWiki software. Just some things to think about. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 13:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Called it! We should instead keep the status quo and embrace a Lolbertarian paradise! Tell me Gooniepunk, how was the site like in the early 2010s with all the edgelords & editors from shitsites like ED & KiwiFarms or when you guys were yucking it up with funpages like the one where you found Putin to be quite hawt (has been nuked in 2023, don't think I can link to this page) or constantly keep people like Ken, Rob and Mikey around so you can troll with them, instead of kicking them out?? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 13:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- You don't know what you're talking about, so calm your feelings down a second. This is something that, when I was on the RWF Board, we debated. And yes: at the time, we concluded that it was a decision left up to the Board, not the Wiki (because it's a major change to the software of the site). You don't have to like that fact, but it's a fact nonetheless. I, honestly, don't give a shit if it's installed (I'm barely ever here anyways), but please tell me you don't know what you're talking about some more! John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 14:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, you act like Morris and the old guard like to act passive-agressive (your exclamation marks say enough, so I'm pretty sure you are the one who needs to calm your feelings.). People can look things up and I've gotten some info from others on the discord in the past. Anyway, have fun acting like an ass, Goony!Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 17:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Dude, no: you're the one getting bent out of shape because I literally stated why CheckUser was rejected by the RWF Board in the past. Not my fault you're so full of yourself that you're literally misinterpreting what I stated as a personal attack on you when it was literally something I brought up so that this conversation doesn't wind up going nowhere like it did every other time it was brought it in the past. But that's on you, not me. As I said, I literally don't care. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not actually full of myself, I don't like internet assholes. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Funny: neither do I. Funnier still: you've have yet to address a single thing I actually brought up as a reason this CheckUser was rejected in the past. But hey: it's your idea funeral! Keep doing the same half-assed proposals to install CheckUser and, maybe some day, it won't be laughed out of the RWF Board. Now I remember why I ceased giving a shit about the community here long ago. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not actually full of myself, I don't like internet assholes. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Dude, no: you're the one getting bent out of shape because I literally stated why CheckUser was rejected by the RWF Board in the past. Not my fault you're so full of yourself that you're literally misinterpreting what I stated as a personal attack on you when it was literally something I brought up so that this conversation doesn't wind up going nowhere like it did every other time it was brought it in the past. But that's on you, not me. As I said, I literally don't care. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, you act like Morris and the old guard like to act passive-agressive (your exclamation marks say enough, so I'm pretty sure you are the one who needs to calm your feelings.). People can look things up and I've gotten some info from others on the discord in the past. Anyway, have fun acting like an ass, Goony!Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 17:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- You don't know what you're talking about, so calm your feelings down a second. This is something that, when I was on the RWF Board, we debated. And yes: at the time, we concluded that it was a decision left up to the Board, not the Wiki (because it's a major change to the software of the site). You don't have to like that fact, but it's a fact nonetheless. I, honestly, don't give a shit if it's installed (I'm barely ever here anyways), but please tell me you don't know what you're talking about some more! John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 14:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- From my perspective, it's not the OmG InVaSIoN oF pRIvACY!!!! the "old guard" seems to think it is. It's a way for someone to look up an IP address of an edit. That's it. In the current era, it's pretty rare for this to directly identify anything on a personal level (other than what ISP you have), as so much of the 'Net is DHCPed. Security wise, you're probably far more at risk these days if you are reusing your RationalWiki account password anywhere.
- OTOH, I do think that IP addresses can be a tool to help identify sockpuppets and other bad faith editing. It also might help clarify "suspicious shit" like a recent AfD where low-edit users kept popping up to brigade the vote. I don't think it's a catchall, of course... it just would be an aid to moderation. I would agree at keeping this tool at the highest level; no one other than moderators need this information.
- One thing I will add though of perhaps greater importance, a "legal reasons" thought that relates to the whole HBD vs. Oliver Smith drama llama. In case a bad faith editor is in a pattern of creating potentially libelous shit on the Wiki, it might make things easier to identify any material that this user might have created (even if they sock-hop), in order to review for potential problems. The Internet isn't like 2010 anymore, you have to think of things like this now, sorry shitposters. BobJohnson (talk) 14:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I fully support seriously discussing getting CheckUser. Spud (talk) 14:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'd personally say that CheckUser should be considered as a tool (it's been long enough that I think the community could be ready for it) but I think we need to make sure that we have the proper systems in place for it. Basically; this should be a right restricted only to techs, we need to maintain case pages (like Wikipedia does) for incidents that warrants its use and any abuse of the right should result in instant revocation of any significant rights the tech might have had (incl. elected moderator positions, although we probably cannot command the Board to do the same for it's members). It's quite a bit of framework to set up, but I do think it might be worth the wiki's time at this point. As for blocking TOR/VPNs, it's something I'm broadly in favor of, but I know some editors prefer to edit with TOR and our implementation would, to my understanding, block editors with accounts as well (since it'd be using the same DNSBLs we use to block spam). -- Techpriest (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- If implemented, it might be a good idea to spell out the types of abuse, even if not exhaustive, that would warrant elimination of rights. Also, it might be a good idea to remove tech rights for anyone who hasn't contributed in over a certain timeframe, say more than a year or so (e.g., Nutty Roux, Zero), though there are likely exceptions such as Trent Toulouse and Tim Starling (RationalWiki:Techs). Bongolian (talk) 20:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well, CheckUser leaves logs behind, so the most basic type of abuse that should be elimination of rights is "using CheckUser without there being an attached case file". Basically what needs to be prevented is someone deciding to just use CheckUser to win an argument on reddit. (A similar situation is what led to D being stripped of their rights if you recall.) Outside of that, Wikipedia is a decent starting model to consider as per usual. -- Techpriest (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- How dare you offer solutions to the problems with CheckUser I brought up! It's almost like someone here is finally serious about solutions and not just whining because someone dared challenge their half-assed ideas with softballs! John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Didn't you LANCB a few hours ago, Goony? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know what the fuck your problem with me is, but EVERY FUCKING ISSUE about CheckUser I've raised has been shit Trent himself brought up when this was discussed while I was chairperson of the RWF Board. This isn't concern trolling, it's legit shit that the RWF would need to consider if you really were serious about going down that road. But what? Because you have this stereotype about me being "Old Guard" (I'm not, I'm second gen) that knows absolutely jack shit about who I really am and really stand for? Even "back in the day," I was always neutral on the subject of CheckUser, because I didn't think it was the worst idea, but wanted to protect it from abuse. Why? Because David Gerard's tech predecessor rogue installed it to personally go after people one day. So yeah
- I'm contributing in good faith to this conversation. Hang your bullshit you've invented about me. You wouldn't stand a chance if folks like Human or Ace or Nutty were around! John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 02:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Knock it off, both of you. Plutocow (talk) 00:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Didn't you LANCB a few hours ago, Goony? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- How dare you offer solutions to the problems with CheckUser I brought up! It's almost like someone here is finally serious about solutions and not just whining because someone dared challenge their half-assed ideas with softballs! John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well, CheckUser leaves logs behind, so the most basic type of abuse that should be elimination of rights is "using CheckUser without there being an attached case file". Basically what needs to be prevented is someone deciding to just use CheckUser to win an argument on reddit. (A similar situation is what led to D being stripped of their rights if you recall.) Outside of that, Wikipedia is a decent starting model to consider as per usual. -- Techpriest (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- If implemented, it might be a good idea to spell out the types of abuse, even if not exhaustive, that would warrant elimination of rights. Also, it might be a good idea to remove tech rights for anyone who hasn't contributed in over a certain timeframe, say more than a year or so (e.g., Nutty Roux, Zero), though there are likely exceptions such as Trent Toulouse and Tim Starling (RationalWiki:Techs). Bongolian (talk) 20:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'd personally say that CheckUser should be considered as a tool (it's been long enough that I think the community could be ready for it) but I think we need to make sure that we have the proper systems in place for it. Basically; this should be a right restricted only to techs, we need to maintain case pages (like Wikipedia does) for incidents that warrants its use and any abuse of the right should result in instant revocation of any significant rights the tech might have had (incl. elected moderator positions, although we probably cannot command the Board to do the same for it's members). It's quite a bit of framework to set up, but I do think it might be worth the wiki's time at this point. As for blocking TOR/VPNs, it's something I'm broadly in favor of, but I know some editors prefer to edit with TOR and our implementation would, to my understanding, block editors with accounts as well (since it'd be using the same DNSBLs we use to block spam). -- Techpriest (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I fully support seriously discussing getting CheckUser. Spud (talk) 14:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Called it! We should instead keep the status quo and embrace a Lolbertarian paradise! Tell me Gooniepunk, how was the site like in the early 2010s with all the edgelords & editors from shitsites like ED & KiwiFarms or when you guys were yucking it up with funpages like the one where you found Putin to be quite hawt (has been nuked in 2023, don't think I can link to this page) or constantly keep people like Ken, Rob and Mikey around so you can troll with them, instead of kicking them out?? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 13:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- The problem with CheckUser is that it's not some magical cure-all tool that people seem to think it is. It is more a tool akin to a flamethrower: yes, it can help with some issues on the Wiki. But it comes with the burden of the fact that those with access to is can easily abuse it if there isn't a stringent system to prevent its abuse. Wikipedia, for example, has strict guidelines on when a Checkuser lookup can and should be performed. But unless RationalWiki's community is ready to have such a stringent system in place, then it risks the "Conservapedia problem" where it suddenly becomes a system of "Shoot first, ask questions later." Further complicating this decision might be (as in, I'm not really sure if it's true anymore, been a long time since I cared to know) that the RW Foundation is the sole power to enable changes like that to the MediaWiki software. Just some things to think about. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 13:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- As someone who uses a similar tool at work, the problem with CheckUser on this site is the tendency to put unsavory people in positions of power on this site (as mentioned above, Nx, D, etc). The "everything is DHCP" bit is horseshit. When I look at the IP addresses an account has logged in from, it's not unusual for me to be able to tell where that person works, goes to school (which, in turn, tells me how old they are, especially when I can narrow it down to a specific school vs. a district), what zip code they live in, what zip code their friends and family they visit around holidays lives in (which often means I can see where they grew up), who their wireless carrier is, whether or not they have home internet... Often the dots can be connected to reveal an individual without even sending a subpoena (which is nice when someone uploads kiddie porn or other highly illegal things and I need to know what LEA to contact and who to send them after, not so nice when someone has nefarious intentions). And if someone has the right connections to get a warrant (and never discount the feasibility of someone having clout with a judge in some small town in North Dakota or somewhere), not only can "CheckUser" lead to an individual identified, but it can also lead to pinpointing their location at all times of the day thanks to cell phones. Now all of this is just assuming IP address alone. I don't know what number of metadata the CheckUsers have access to, but there's all sorts of fun that can be had with that. It's for these reasons that the WMF requires a freaking background check to get access to the tool (assuming someone's account doesn't get compromised) I think adding CheckUser is asking for the site to be sued, it's a huge liability, and literally nobody on this site other than maybe Trent (who has other ways of getting IPs as I understand) should have access to it. Not to mention, the people who troll the site seem to deeply hate the site. Their trolling is pretty much harmless and reverted with the click of a button, but what happens when you're actually successful at stopping that? Off-wiki stalking? Violence? Unfortunately, escalation of internet disputes is another thing I witness at work and have to intervene in. Is it worth that risk? Just fucking learn to DFTT or find a different hobby. It's not worth even a small amount of risk of enflaming these idiotic losers to the point that someone, anyone, gets hurt IRL. ExtremeAtheist (talk) 02:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Question: what is checkuser supposed to solve, exactly?
- My view is that if we put in a checkuser just for account creation [and block creation from VPN/public/mobile IPs] we will at least choke off the most prolific trolls/spammers. For issues of data security, the rights to look up checkuser should be as limited as realistically as possible [say no more than three accounts; one main, one backup and one emergency] and put with members of the 'old guard' who can be generally trusted by the community to not fuck it up. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- It doesn't solve anything because the only people with the technical knowledge to handle such information already have server access. ExtremeAtheist (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Possible ban evasion: PolyStan/Kadashova[edit]
I have received an email from a Sysop, whom I presume wishes to remain anonymous, claiming that User:Kadashova is a sock of banned User:PolyStan. @Anti-eugenicist did the initial ban on November 14 and @Plutocow rebanned them the following day.[18] The Sysop who claimed this said that their edits on Eugenics and Peter Thiel were the tipoff. I have not investigated further at this point. Bongolian (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- That actually makes perfect sense. I walked past this wiki and observed some trolling of articles related to eugenics, such as the user Anti-eugenicist opposing it. I looked through their contributions and found them to be generally helpful. I then also left multiple talk page comments more or less to this effect. I would imagine that's how you get a large share of your newcomer accounts at this point. KaDaShOvA (talk) 18:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have looked the edits on two articles in question, and I don't see a close similarity. I'll wait till Anti-eugenicist and/or Plutocow weigh in. Bongolian (talk) 19:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- (ec)The thing about PolyStan is that they're a confirmed alt of User:Roggenwolf due to their shared IPs as proven by autoblock (as I noted here). Roggenwolf is allegedly an impersonation of a now-banned
Wikipedia user; the substack article alleges that the impersonation was done by Oliver Smith whilst User:Oldman4 says it's Mikemikev. Regardless, it is clear that PolyStan is not a good-faith editor. Plutocow (talk) 19:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
[show]![]() |
---|
- I just found a recently blocked IP that might be related to Polystan. One of their edits makes it clear that they are, however, pro- and not anti-eugenics.[19] KaDaShOvA (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
I thought it might be useful to mention that Kadashova LANCB'ed a few hours ago. So, what happens with this Ban evasion accusation? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 15:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)