Talk:Jonathan Kane/Archive1

Recent additions

In a recent series of edits, Johns copied material to this article from the Emily Willoughby alleging that I am the pseudonymous author "Shuichi Tezuka". The source given for the statement is this thread at the Wikipediocracy forum. The article cites that thread to state, "In a thread on Wikipediocracy forum, a user identifies Feragho as Willoughby and the article writer as Kane." This material was originally added to the Willoughby article by the user Boar, who was most likely a sockpuppet of Oliver Smith.

Please look carefully at the source for this sentence. In that thread at Wikipediocracy I am mentioned, and Shuichi Tezuka also is mentioned, but we are not actually identified as being the same person. This is material that was (probably) written by a banned user and that misrepresents its source. The Emily Willoughby article also still contains some material based on Boar's inaccurate summary of this forum thread, alleging that she is the author "Linda Ashtear".

Based on the advice I was recently given in Bongolian's user talk, I assume it would not be appropriate for me to remove this material myself, but for the reasons described above I suggest that it should not be included in the article. --Tetrapteryx (talk) 14:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

You're misusing RationalWiki to spread misinformation about Smith who is not Boar. You took this from Cancel Watch without fact checking. Then again, you are likely behind Cancel Watch or at least associated with it. You're also someone who lies, hides behind countless pseudonyms (despite projecting a lot) and always lying about your accounts. There is strong evidence to connect Willougby to Linda Ashtear and you to Shuichi Tezuka. 108.61.213.191 (talk) 14:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Smith, I know this is you. No legitimate user would feel the need to use a throwaway VPN IP while commenting here. Unless you can get unbanned from RationalWiki (which has a snowball's chance in hell of happening), I'm not going to engage with you. --Tetrapteryx (talk) 14:48, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry but not every person who is onto your lies, trickery and deception is Smith. @Johns, @Bongolian you should sort this mess out and realise Kane wants to whitewash his article and is only here to spread misinformation. 108.61.213.191 (talk) 14:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I am a secret clone of Smith created in the Hollow ground of pluto made specifically to mess with you, just thought I should tell you now. A somebody. (talk) 17:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

How many pseudonyms, fake names, aliases etc. does this guy have?

Captain Occam, Agahnim, Aggie, Shuichi Tezuka, Tetrapteryx, Anhinga, Microraptor and Cayro -- and that was only about 10 minutes of a Google search. 108.61.213.191 (talk) 15:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

WikiFur entry which lists some. 108.61.213.191 (talk) 15:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Hey Smith, why don't you go play on the swing set in your parents' backyard? It's more enjoyable than spending every waking minute in front of a computer. --Tetrapteryx (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

More projection? Says the guy with countless fake names on the internet. 108.61.213.191 (talk) 15:16, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

There is good evidence that Kane is Tezuka because he signed his name Jonathan Kane, that information was put onto Wikipediocracy but it has magically been deleted in the last 3hours. I suspect Kane has had it deleted because he is a member there. Its worth checking to see if the thread was archived. 82.132.234.34 (talk) 15:44, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

If you're referring to what I think you are, there was a post on Wikipediocracy in which another of the members speculated that I might be Tezuka, and I contacted that person by private message to tell him that his speculation was incorrect, so he deleted his post. All of that happened a year ago, not anytime recently. --Tetrapteryx (talk) 16:17, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

So what now?

The removal of the "Shuichi Tezuka" and Quilette part specifically was discussed in RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Kane. Johns suggested it, Tetrapteryx did it, and A somebody. reverted it.

Johns has a point; normally, there should be a source to refer to in making a claim, particularly an important claim. The path of maintaining decorum ends up being that of a removal, in my view.

At the same time, I somewhat understand the opposition. And if a new, usable source is found to link to, then re-addition after removal would make sense. I note that the old link currently in the article goes to a specific forum post no longer in the forum thread linked to; that part of the URL is clear. The editor "Boar" apparently originally used something no longer there as the source. Above, Tetrapteryx first makes it sound otherwise, then later admits there used to be something more there. As for whether the now-gone source material was good enough to use, I have no idea, since I haven't seen it. I haven't found it on the usual web archive sites, so in either case it appears truly gone. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 11:21, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I believe the article should be kept but as an anti-creationist article because that is what this Kane person is best known for. I agree there are no secondary sources describing Shuichi Tezuka as Jonathan Kane, or any other of his other alleged identities. I believe they are him but I can't prove that. We shouldn't cite an opinion on here, we need good sources. The information should thus be removed. I think here at RationalWiki we should stop referring to Wiki War drama, I am guilty in the past of citing it, I regret that. The only exception is Abd Lomax because he filed a lawsuit against Wikipedia. But I think we should stop citing people's banned Wikipedia accounts and sock-puppets. I am tired of reading about it. There may indeed have been some posts on Wikipediocracy but the thread has now been hidden, you have to be logged in or an admin to see it. If there was evidence it has been removed and it is not on the archive website. The best thing to do here IMO is just cite his work on anti-creationism. The Wiki war drama is not helping this website. Johns (talk) 11:29, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

OK, a complete whitewashing is unacceptable. I will review this article since none of these shitty socks seem to be able to do it right. BobJohnson (talk) 13:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

@Tetrapteryx I am politely requesting that you do not edit this page anymore. Whereas we don't have any rules against it, editing a wiki article about yourself is generally considered to be very bad form. If you have any more complaints, please put them here on the talk page. And if nobody does anything about them, still don't edit the page yourself. Spud (talk) 13:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Cleanup attempt complete for now. I removed the Quillette stuff (because there is no real proof of who wrote that pseudonymous article and we really shouldn't do speculative junk like that) and the Nazi dinosaur art crap (because I don't think that is notable).

Kane and Willoughby has written a couple blog posts on hereditarianism, so I think that this is notable enough. This also includes a touch of the Wiki drama, Rationalwiki covers some notable Wiki trolls, particularly if they fit the mission, and based on what I saw there's enough substance here to mention certain opinions and associations. BobJohnson (talk) 15:21, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Good work making it more concise. I don't like wikidrama either, but removing everything related to that, like Johns went for, would remove half the picture here. I think you struck a good balance. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 17:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

@BobJohnson Thanks for your rewrite. I agree this is a significant improvement over the earlier version of the article, but I have a few suggestions.

1. The statement "Kane has been involved in a decade long running feud on Wikipedia regarding articles on race and intelligence" implies that my participation in the dispute has been ongoing for all that time. It would be more accurate to be specific that my participation happened in 2009 and 2010, not recently.
2. The wording "that some other editors view as 'racist' and 'eugenicist'" is not quite true to the source. In the Wikipediocracy thread cited for that sentence, the specific thing I was accused of is "rubbing elbows with racists and eugenicists", not that I necessarily held those views myself. (For the record, I oppose eugenics, because as a libertarian I think governments have no business meddling in people's reproductive lives.)
3. Could this article be added to the Authors category? We seem to agree that my anti-creationism book is the most important thing I'm known for, so the article's categories should reflect that.

@Spud What do you recommend I do when there's a clear consensus that the article should be modified in some way, but nobody else can spare the effort to make the agreed-upon change? The reason I made these additions is that it was widely agreed the article should include more detail about my anti-creationism work, but it also was clear that the change wasn't going to happen unless I did it myself. --Tetrapteryx (talk) 17:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I have applied the edits to some degree. From what I can tell it seems that there have been other "wiki drama" off and on regarding race and intelligence articles beyond 2009 and 2010, but it matters little, I basically don't think it is necessary to qualify the drama with a date range. We don't need *huge* detail on Wikidrama. BobJohnson (talk) 18:08, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

@Tetrapteryx I've told you what you can do. Put your complaint on this talk page and hope somebody does something about it. If nobody else does it, it ain't gonna happen. And considering all the edits that have been made to this page in the past 24 hours, if the changes you want don't get made, it probably won't be because nobody else can be arsed to do them and more likely to be so as to stop whitewashing. Spud (talk) 07:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

@Spud I don't have any major objections to this article in its current state. It still isn't totally accurate, but the remaining inaccuracies are small enough that I'm not sure whether they're worth bringing up (although I might eventually feel differently if this article makes it into the top Google results for my name). My question here is mainly what to do about problems that might arise in the future.

Suppose that in another year or a few years, Smith shows up here again and adds unsourced defamatory material, and by that point the rest of RationalWiki's users are no longer interested in editing this article. If that happens and nobody else can spare the effort to undo his changes, are you suggesting I have to let him do what he wants to the article, even if there's a consensus that his changes aren't acceptable? --Tetrapteryx (talk) 16:06, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

@Tetrapteryx In the highly unlikely event that scenario comes to pass, point out on this talk page, in the Saloon Bar and at All Things in Moderation that the article about you has had disinformation added to it by a sock of a notorious banned user. Even if all the current users are gone, the future users will sort it out. Spud (talk) 16:12, 27 July 2023 (UTC)