RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation/Archive81

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 14 May 2025. Please do not make edits to this page.

[HBD discussion redacted by RMF]

User:BurntToast attempted to delete the Cass Review article without going through AfD first[edit]

What it says on the tin; Their reasoning for this can be seen in the deletion logs:

This boot-licking fash appeaser site doesn't get to benefit from my research and hard work

And also:

"CC licenses are irrevocable," blah blah blah. You really gonna lean on a legal argument when it's clear RW doesn't have any spine in that regard? The only things keeping lawsuit-happy UK TERFs from using SLAPP suits to silence critics like they do in the UK is the 1st Amendment and the difficulty of overseas litigation. Now that RW has folded, it's officially open season. Might as well let me take my ball. It'll be easier.

TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 23:01, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

You conveniently omitted the fact that I restored the article soon after, conceding it wasn't solely my work. Whatever. I'm done. You want to start an inquisition while the ship is foundering? Have at it. It's your time to waste as you see fit. I'm going to "promote" myself, and then I've no intention of visiting this site again. Burnt Toast (talk) 23:53, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, my bad. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 00:30, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Resigning as mod[edit]

I'm resigning as a moderator too. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 23:57, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Is it because of recent events? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 13:04, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Look at his user page. That tells you just about everything. I think I can say that DuceMoosolini did more than anyone to save this site. More than most of you will ever know. Whether he likes it or not, the continued existence of this site will be more his legacy than anyone else's. Spud (talk) 13:27, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Eh, I never said or thought that the board were "fascist appeasers", like our more populistic members like to do (yet didn't bring any solutions themselfs). Like, I found out about this shit only a few days ago (I haven't been really active since December for irl reasons). I literally found out most of this after sending DMs to Geejay, because of Tech LANCBing from the Discord. We lost 2 good editors, because of shitbags like Smith and the likes. And I'm pretty sure they saw our fundraiser and launch torpedos at us, because we weren't at our goal back then (which we have reached 2 days ago). And what are we replacing both of them with? Probably more people that come here just to start bitching in the bar because we, for some reason, are now PubWiki... Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 14:14, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
I've accepted that this was to some extent a 'hospital pass' and with the situation and conditions of the moment, all the choices were shit. And I haven't called anyone 'fascist appeasers' either.
The issue I am looking at here is long-term. That there is now a distinct vibe of pre-emptive self-censorship running through RW, for understandable reasons. I ask you this; would RW be worth saving if we rapidly end in a position where we'll salt whole sectors of our remit on the suspicion that someone might take offense at it and file a suit? That if we have a board who will settle basically automatically if suit is filed [even after Oregon?] regardless of actual merit? That we have a userbase who are all mouth and no trousers; unwilling to actually do some serious legwork in rebuilding RW or even come up with actual viable options [yes, the do-nothing moaners piss me off too]? Even more importantly, if we have users who suspect 'RW is going to go this way', that they give up producing new content [for example, I've halted all my mainspace work because of the libel threat said pages would pose].
This is why I seriously suggested taking RW offline for a bit. To have a serious, adult conversation of what to do next, how it might be achieved and the realistic possibility of it working. For example, the possibility of RationalWiki's content relating to orgs and persons to be hived off to a new 'sibling' Wiki [let's call it 'QuackWiki'] which is operated as a private org and thus can have ads etc to pay for legal insurance. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
I would like to say more to correct some misconceptions about what happened. But I can't for legal reasons. Spud (talk) 15:23, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Well, that was an unfortunate ragequit. My thoughts:
A) My biggest problem with the board was a lack of communication. If the board needed some help, they should have asked for help from others to pitch in. But maybe they couldn't for various reasons...
B) Personally, I've had some longstanding deep "issues" with certain RW operational paradigms, which is why I've never bothered to even become moderator level. No need to go into "cool story bro" details, though, because...
C) One big issue that goes beyond any of my personal qualms into "the state of freedom of press in the United States". And this is fundamentally where the "what next" is (from my perspective) challenging. I'll give two examples:
1) Oliver Smith tried to pull his sue-happy shit on Substack nearly a year ago. It didn't work. But Substack has the backing of Kik Messenger Guy money. Do you now need Big Money Backing to have even a chance of free press in the US now?
2) We are living in a Trump 2.0 world. At the moment, this is a nation where even Wikipedia is treating the United States as a nation of increasing authoritarianism, and thus the Wikimedia foundation has to be concerned about free media attacks from deep pocketed American fascist shitheads like the Heritage Foundation and Elon Musk. At least Wikipedia has Big Money backing! There are plenty of other examples of US press freedom backsliding; it's no surprise that RSF's World Press Freedom Index ranks the (supposed "land of the free") United States as having "problematic" press freedom. Can "little guys" survive in this sort of environment, and how?
It's this sort of thing where I struggle with some of the "going forward" details. Yes, people on this Wiki might be in "do nothing" mode, but with the United States (the center of most of the RW editing world, for better or worse) sliding down the authoritarian path at the moment, can you really blame them? For instance, I can't find it, but I vaguely remember one comment in this matter where a user specifically cited US immigration as a reason not to get deeper involved in this Wiki. This is the sort of "cloud" that might hang over "small guy" places like this regardless of anything RW does. (And no, sadly, I don't have an answer for how to combat this right now.) BobJohnson (talk) 16:24, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Big Money. @BobJohnson, I'm afraid you've hit the nail on the head. Spud (talk) 17:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
a) I agree 100%. That there was a worrying level of silence on the whole affair; I appreciate there would have been stuff that the Board could not say and more that it wouldn't have been wise to say, but something needed to be said, if only to calm nerves and dampen pointless speculations. The silence also meant that the Board appeared to be unable to tap any wider help in, well anything - like for example trying to publicise the incidents to others who might be sympathetic.
c) Is a big enough concern I've started to very vaguely look into the costs/etc of doing a UK-based RW fork if needed [perhaps £2k p/a, with x2 that to setup?]. Or the 'QuackWiki' finds it's way over here while RW stays there.
2) Is why I think the Board need to have that 'serious, adult conversation'. Because if nothing else, it is clear that RW's status quo is dead. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Unless you know something that I don't, the UK doesn't seem to have any anti-SLAPP laws (Strategic lawsuit against public participation § United Kingdom). Bongolian (talk) 17:51, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Britain has some of the most punitive defamation laws in the world. Christopher (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Defamation Act 2013. This 'plan Brit' was one I was thinking of is one where the American enviroment is unhospitable to RW period. My v.vague costing also included media liability insurance / sinking lawyer fund. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:03, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Atten mods, important wiki business[edit]

@ApooftGnegiol @Bongolian @Flandres @KarmaPolice @Plutocow @Spud

I have some important topics to discuss with you and do not want to do it on the wiki. Please join me in #rational-wiki-moderators on Discord. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 00:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

OK, what time? Bongolian (talk) 00:23, 23 April 2025 (UTC) I'm there now. Bongolian (talk) 00:25, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
I'll be there from 0020 on tonight for a couple of hours or so. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 00:27, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
1)Sorry for being late, today was an incredibly busy day for me offline 2) I am not and have never active on discord at all and I don't know the first thing about the place.-Flandres (talk) 02:56, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
And this is one of the reasons I never put myself up for the Board; my hours are not only restricted right now (basically, 15-17h EDT) but I'm also going to be computerless until Sunday (perhaps longer). Now, I'll see if I can do this via my phone [like above, I've never done this before] but who knows? It may be quicker in this case to do me with the RW email function. KarmaPolice (talk) 08:44, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
I've just commented on the mods' Discord page. Spud (talk) 12:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
@KarmaPolice Feel free to email me directly if Discord isn't a good choice for you. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 12:10, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
If you email me via RW the points/issues which need my X / opinion / heads up I can then get back to you as quick as. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Like KP, I am best reached via email. Be warned, there might be some awkwardness-I just set up the ability to email me via RW now because I didn't even know it was possible before today. A thousand apologies from me for each delay.-Flandres (talk) 18:10, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Emails sent to Karma and Flandres. The email service on the wiki server is occasionally broken, so let me know if you don't get a message in the next few hours and i'll see if we can get the wiki server fixed or find a better way. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 19:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Cosmikdebris, I posted an additional issue last night on discord after you had left. Bongolian (talk) 20:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Proposal- mod veto: 'Delete all articles related to HDF' vote.[edit]

@ApooftGnegiol @Bongolian @Flandres @Plutocow @Spud

Threefold:

1. As per Bongolan's argument, this question should be left to the Board because it is related to legal actions.

2. I am very concerned about 'preventative' self-censorship on RW.

3. As per Pinkerite's argument, I believe this vote is being manipulated by people with an agenda and secret money. (Read from 'Some leading activists were reaching the ears of powerful people').

A lot has been said about 'protecting RW'. And in this case I think it needs us mods to protect RW from this kind of shenanigans. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I'll say "no" to deleting all those articles for now. Sadly, a lot of them do need to be edited for reasons that my fellow Board members, and now also my fellow mods, will understand. And it's also possible that other named people named in those articles will come after us soon. I guess we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. Spud (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
As stated prior, I agree with the veto due to this being a board issue rather than an ATIM issue. Plus, I don't think the deletion voters have provided a list of articles that are covered by the vote, which would be necessary if it were to pass; I find it problematic that people are voting for article deletions without it being clear which articles are going to be deleted. Even if this passes, the unclear parameters of the vote mean that there will still be arguments over how to implement it. Plus, the fact that the vote was started by a banned long-term troll casts doubt on the legitimacy of this process in the first place. Plutocow (talk) 18:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
As I stated above, this should be a board decision. There are rumors of more lawsuits coming forward. It seems that the sharks started circling after last year's legal settlement. The board has some difficult short-term decisions need to be made, including whether RW should stay the course and risk more lawsuits, self-censor and possibly still risk more lawsuits, or temporarily shut down until the move is completed. Bongolian (talk) 18:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
I will agree with Bongolian that the board should be able to swiftly intervene to preserve the site. They do have the best grasp of the situation and the stakes, after all.-Flandres (talk) 19:46, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Delete Smith's article creations[edit]

[redacted]