RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation/Archive84
VPN-abusing troll stirring up shit[edit]
There is an anonymous user (or users) abusing VPNs who keeps claiming that one or more registered accounts on RationalWiki are socks associated with some inane racialist nonsense organization or up to some nefarious behavior. They use a certain pattern, such as "I know this is the case but I won't provide any evidence because it will be ignored." Most recently they were using 67.205.182.204, 208.115.193.120, and 38.248.90.134 among others. I'm getting really tired of this behavior and would like moderator input on how to handle them. I suggest revert, block, and ignore on sight. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 17:10, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
- Sounds like trolling (anonymous + no evidence). Feel free to revert & block for pi-days. Bongolian (talk) 00:56, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Board and Moderator relationship[edit]
@Cosmikdebris, Stabby the Misanthrope, and Spud, So now that the move to Oregon seems to be official (RationalWiki:RationalMedia Foundation), what is the relationship between the Board and the Moderators? It seems a bit vague (or even peculiar, given the moderation question from a board member above) from the new Bylaws, "the Board shall have responsibility to oversee community moderation" (RationalWiki:RationalMedia Foundation/Bylaws#Section 5.1 Powers).
Also, a second question for the Board, are the deleted pages allowed to be recreated, given the new incorporation, or do the terms of the settlement preclude that? Bongolian (talk) 04:14, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Don't discuss that please |
---|
|


As both a moderator and a member of the Board, I must insist on an immediate end to all discussion of recreating articles that we were compelled to delete. You are putting the future of the site in jeopardy. You are putting me and other current and former Board members at personal risk. Please, just stop it! Spud (talk) 09:23, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
- Does the fact that you just hid @DuceMoosolini's comment mean it's incorrect? Do you plan to go around the entire website deleting any references, from anybody, made at any time, about this issue? Pinkerite (talk) 09:49, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
- No DuceMoosolini was 100% correct. I hid it all in the hope of discouraging further discussion. And, yes, I will remove any further discussion of this topic I see anywhere. And I will temporarily block and temporarily desysop anyone who continues talking about it after having been warned not to. Spud (talk) 11:07, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
- I think this is the stage I point out what I asked on the 16th. Esp. 1/ and 2/. Give us details and I [and others] can help you ensure RW stays complaint and follows the plan set out by the Board. The best treatment for speculation is facts and for line-crossing is to outline where said lines actually are. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:25, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
- @KarmaPolice This is as plain as I can make it. Do not talk about recreating any of the articles that we were compelled to delete. That includes talking about creating new articles about the same people and things from scratch. I cannot give you all of the facts that you want. Neither can any of the other current Board members or those who were among the last members of the old Board. That is because we are bound by legal agreements. I am not doing this out of a wish to censor. I am doing this to protect the wiki, myself and other Board members past and present, and potentially other individual users. Spud (talk) 11:53, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
- I know this tune, methinks. Therefore, I propose the following. The removal of all eugenics articles post-1945 [inc proponents active after this point], including but not limited to discussions in talk pages, personal areas and the SB, WIGO links detailing the subject, mainspace refs which primarily deal with this topic, discussions to the reasons why past the official statement and any attempts to create them on RW. Clear lines are drawn, all knows about them, we can get on with our lives. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:36, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
- What an utterly obnoxious suggestion. As if the current censorship isn't bad enough, you want to remove even articles which were permitted by the [lawsuits against] the old Rational Media Foundation. Excuse me while I go puke. Pinkerite (talk) 18:32, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
- Spud made it quite clear. 1) Oregon-based RW needs to abide by the terms of the agreement as long as parties to the NM-based agreement are members of the Board. 2) The litigants agreed that NM-based RW was compliant with the agreement at the time that it was finalized (and we may presume approved by a judge who dismissed the cases). 3) None of the parties to agreement can suddenly PIDOOMA new terms to the agreement.
- I will oppose any further calls for deletions based on other than traditional reasons (non-missionality, stub, poorly written, internet nobody) unless Board approved. Bongolian (talk) 19:24, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
- What an utterly obnoxious suggestion. As if the current censorship isn't bad enough, you want to remove even articles which were permitted by the [lawsuits against] the old Rational Media Foundation. Excuse me while I go puke. Pinkerite (talk) 18:32, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
- I know this tune, methinks. Therefore, I propose the following. The removal of all eugenics articles post-1945 [inc proponents active after this point], including but not limited to discussions in talk pages, personal areas and the SB, WIGO links detailing the subject, mainspace refs which primarily deal with this topic, discussions to the reasons why past the official statement and any attempts to create them on RW. Clear lines are drawn, all knows about them, we can get on with our lives. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:36, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
- @KarmaPolice This is as plain as I can make it. Do not talk about recreating any of the articles that we were compelled to delete. That includes talking about creating new articles about the same people and things from scratch. I cannot give you all of the facts that you want. Neither can any of the other current Board members or those who were among the last members of the old Board. That is because we are bound by legal agreements. I am not doing this out of a wish to censor. I am doing this to protect the wiki, myself and other Board members past and present, and potentially other individual users. Spud (talk) 11:53, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
- I think this is the stage I point out what I asked on the 16th. Esp. 1/ and 2/. Give us details and I [and others] can help you ensure RW stays complaint and follows the plan set out by the Board. The best treatment for speculation is facts and for line-crossing is to outline where said lines actually are. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:25, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
- No DuceMoosolini was 100% correct. I hid it all in the hope of discouraging further discussion. And, yes, I will remove any further discussion of this topic I see anywhere. And I will temporarily block and temporarily desysop anyone who continues talking about it after having been warned not to. Spud (talk) 11:07, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
- The terms you listed were my understanding too, until the last couple of weeks. Since then it appears condition 1 is in doubt (meaning that the targeted censorship could remain even after NM-era board members are replaced by non-NM-era board members), which is the justification given for why one board member jumped down everybody's throats for daring to discuss mere possibilities of life after NM-era board members have resigned. I have been told that additional legal advice is being sought on this matter. I anticipate that ultimately condition 1 will be upheld, because it would be pure insanity otherwise. But even if upheld, it won't matter in censorship terms until the NM-based members of the Board have resigned - and they don't look like they are in a big hurry to go. Instead, they seem content - whether due to being scared shitless of Adversary or other reasons too awful to contemplate - to maintain conditions that benefit Adversary long after legal agreements have been finalized and lawsuits have been settled and a brand new Rational Media has arisen from the ashes of the old. Pinkerite (talk) 21:19, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
- Question; is it possible for RW to cover the subject well enough while remaining compliant with the terms of the legal agreement? Have you even looked at some of the 'survivors'? A lot wouldn't survive AfDs. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:34, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
Can I have this username too, please?[edit]
It's been inactive since 2013, and I think it would be wise for me to have a lower-permissioned account for my phone etc. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:12, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, sock accounts such as this are allowed. The only prohibition is on both accounts voting in the same vote. Bongolian (talk) 02:20, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
- Oh, I'm not looking to double-dip. Just having an account I can use while using insecure wifis etc. KarmaPolice (talk) 03:30, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
- I think I need to clarify. I don't want a sock account, I want the linked account to become my sock. KarmaPolice (talk) 03:32, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know whether that's possible. Maybe someone else does. Bongolian (talk) 03:42, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
- It is possible to rename it and have KP reregister under the same name. Plutocow (talk) 03:47, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
- But what about different permission levels? Bongolian (talk) 03:49, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
- I can pull up a private window, register using an alt email address and with a different password. Then I can shove in a redirect and edit the sig so [ideally] it appears to the public at large that both accounts are one. Just that 'Karma' will only be Autopatrolled. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:58, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
- You can create an account without logging out, I've done it a few times to prevent impersonation of renamed users. If anyone has objections to you renaming an existing account KarmaCop is available.
- Makes sense to create an alt without moderator powers, but you might as well make it a sysop - it's unlikely it'll ever be compromised, and it'd quickly be promoted if it were. Christopher (talk) 14:48, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
- Are folks really saying we are unable to do a mass delete of old, very dormant accounts with little to nil edits? KarmaPolice (talk) 16:37, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
- I can pull up a private window, register using an alt email address and with a different password. Then I can shove in a redirect and edit the sig so [ideally] it appears to the public at large that both accounts are one. Just that 'Karma' will only be Autopatrolled. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:58, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
- But what about different permission levels? Bongolian (talk) 03:49, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
- It is possible to rename it and have KP reregister under the same name. Plutocow (talk) 03:47, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know whether that's possible. Maybe someone else does. Bongolian (talk) 03:42, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
- A mass renaming wouldn't be worth the hassle - you'd need to create a bot and give it tech rights. As for Karma, I say leave a message on their talkpage, email them (they do have a verified email), and then go ahead if you receive no reply. Christopher (talk) 19:58, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
Mass deletion in mainspace?[edit]
[On how much of the modern eugenics articles are salvageable due to agreements]. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:04, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
- I have not, but that is a separate issue if you can make an argument to delete any on an individual basis based the traditional reasons, then I'm not against it. James Randi will survive an AfD. The eugenics article itself is bronze, and I would guess it to be good enough to be silver with some modest cleanup. Bongolian (talk) 19:46, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
- Randi will survive because he's got other things going for him. Eugenics itself will survive because it covers the entire history of - I would quite literally [as I said above] just quit coverage past 1945. Intelligence (journal) is now a near-stub which I strongly suspect will be unable to grow due to verboten. Thus my question - which I am not qualified to answer due to the fact I do not know the verboten list and are not that well-read in this topic. However, I *did* watch RWs 'total mainspace pagecount' go back by quite a lot during that period. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:04, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
- There is probably no satisfying answer here, like a readily available master list of articles that can no longer grow. If anyone is passionate about removing them, they will just have to roll up their sleeves and get nominating.-Flandres (talk) 20:39, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
- Yet I think we will need to try to establish some form of answer - because I am not confident the current position [or more correctly, lack of position] will help in the long run [in fact, I fear it will increasingly make the situation worse]. The whole affair - I fear - may have caused most of RWs 'knowledge pool' on this topic to quit [in some way] which means we lack the ability to really work out if the cuts have been lethal to the topic's coverage. And without a master list [in some way] it's going to be difficult to make the call regarding lethality.
- There is probably no satisfying answer here, like a readily available master list of articles that can no longer grow. If anyone is passionate about removing them, they will just have to roll up their sleeves and get nominating.-Flandres (talk) 20:39, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
- Randi will survive because he's got other things going for him. Eugenics itself will survive because it covers the entire history of - I would quite literally [as I said above] just quit coverage past 1945. Intelligence (journal) is now a near-stub which I strongly suspect will be unable to grow due to verboten. Thus my question - which I am not qualified to answer due to the fact I do not know the verboten list and are not that well-read in this topic. However, I *did* watch RWs 'total mainspace pagecount' go back by quite a lot during that period. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:04, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
- Look, I get that some folks will think 'why the hell is KP being a picky pain in the arse, can't they just quit it?' but Duce was right when they said 'we need people to step up to the fucking plate'. I let too much stuff slide going back to when Trent failed to pay the server bill, via He Who Must Not Be Named. Perhaps if we'd actually got our arses into gear then we wouldn't need to have this conversation now. I'm also worried that now the Troika have pulled us out of the immediate fire and we promptly sink back into inertia. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:13, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
Euria[edit]
Recreated a previously deleted article originally written by Wisconcom under a different name (with the only change being the first square). I'm not even sure how they found it given that [Special:WhatLinksHere/Fun:Liberal argument bingo|nothing links there]] (besides this, obviously) so we may be dealing with ban evasion here. Regardless, they seem to be a troublemaker that has a habit of making obviously problematic edits then deleting the evidence. Plutocow (talk) 04:09, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
- This person has engaged in Pol Pot[1] and Mao Zedong [2] apologia. At best, they are a parodist. At worse, they are actually serious. It'd support an indefinte block, I don't even think we need a vote if mods agree that this person should not edit RW. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 11:37, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
- I am not a Wisconcom alt. I am a close comrade to Wisconcom and am a member of his organization. He directly sent me the wiki markup pages for me to add to RationalWiki, although I made changes to them to comply with our mission statement. I am merely a rationalist who have discovered the truth behind Pol Pot and Mao Zedong and am wanting to share it with fellow rationalists. I do not have any political biases whatsoever. Euria (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
- I just start to review the evidence and the target gets banned due to meatpuppetry.... KarmaPolice (talk) 17:18, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
- (ec)Whilst this is still likely a Wisconcom alt that is an admission of meatpuppetry on behalf of a banned user and is grounds for a ban. Plutocow (talk) 17:19, 31 July 2025 (UTC)