Information icon.svg Results for the 2023 RationalWiki Moderator Election have now been posted. Thank you for participating in this election, and congratulations to the winners!


From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon sociology.svg This article contains information about one or more living persons.

Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats.
Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed.
If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.


Is this person sufficiently notable? A cursory search finds his own Youtube and social networking pages but very little else. Oh, and e-begging. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 02:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

It might be best to mess up the grammar, add some irrelevant rape references, and transfer it to Encyclopedia Dramatica. (talk) 15:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
He is the most subscribed Youtuber covering Deep Web type material Deku-shrub (talk) 15:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I certainly think this article can and should stay, though I do mean that with a significant rewrite, where his wall of text of video links is replaced with actual text, analysis and refutation as per the mission statement. So the current article is crap, but there's a ton of sources that can be used for a rewrite already in it. So deletion is not needed. Also, this guy is atleast as notable as Stars are Souls. I find this guy notable. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I took this to the deletion discussion. Show's over folks, nothing to see here, move along. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


If all you can say about an entry is "He did something today" it really doesn't need to be mentioned.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 19:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to illustrate how variable his content is from sold material to outright fabrication are. This probably won't be the final format. Deku-shrub (talk) 20:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
That doesn't necessitate a Timeline of GG level of coverage on things. "He did a video onsomething!" isn't that important, keep it to the important ones, and tell us in a paragraph he covers lot of things - a list is disorganized and just looks like "time to gloss over" material. I mean I removed one that said "He got a new intro" woopty fucking doo.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 20:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
The intro is actually relevant in passing as it shows his actual (lack of) technical skills juxaposed with the level of technical authority with which he speaks 20:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
So point that out in the article, telling us "and now he has a new one!" without any indication of why that is relevant to know is useless.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 20:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Because it's a work in progress <_< Deku-shrub (talk) 20:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Those tend to be improved when people tell you what you've done wrong. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 20:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Tell me he sucks at techy stuff in the article, not via a blurb in a giant eye glazing list--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 20:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I would have thought you've could have assimilated that from the content so far. Obviously this needs a real narrative, I have to start with an index of key events though, so that's what I created. Deku-shrub (talk) 20:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
key events meaning "he covered something again". Woopty doo he's unoriginal. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 20:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

8chan thread[edit]

So when I started this mini-project, I was unaware that 8chan had been doxing him and debunking him from the last month or so. They will probably find this page at some point. Deku-shrub (talk) 20:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I also didn't realise he had an entry on encyclopediadramatica, the content of which I think came from the same 8chan thread. Deku-shrub (talk) 20:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Irrelevant remark[edit]

This pseudonym reminded me of Piltdown Man.Wikipedia (talk) 20:37, 31 August 42015 AQD (UTC)


How does the page not list his supposed "blindness"!?


This page is mentioned at the start of of this video! Deku-shrub (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


This article is full of gossipy tittle tattle. Do we really want that? "Couldn't tell the difference between Nair and Shaving Cream and almost burns his face off " - well stop the presses.

And the remark disparaging the appearance of his apparent wives, is just foul. Stop reinserting that.

For no good reason, incorrect initial capitals and capitalised words keep appearing. Instead of doing that, how about the editors who work on this article start providing some citations where they have been requested? If not, the unsourced claims will be deleted.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 01:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

People will just go somewhere else if content begins to be deleted because of your personal views and insecurities. Also you complain about punctuation and spelling when you can't even spell capitalized, correctly. -ChiWest
How is that GOSSIP when it happened? The link to the VIDEO was included and it corresponds to his BLINDNESS and his false claims of working on Construction Contracts for a living. -ChiWest
Censoring information because you have feminist views, doesn't relate to the fact that it was stated in a public forum. This is a TakeDownMan Wiki, not the New York Times. -ChiWest
ChiWest, you are a fucking moron. 'Capitalised' is the correct spelling in British English, which is perfectly acceptable to use here. Queexchthonic murmurings 13:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
If you think that mocking the appearance of women is an acceptable practice then it is you who should go somewhere else. And Queex has already corrected your lack of knowledge of spelling conventions. On a more constructive note, how about providing some citations where they have been asked for?--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 13:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@ChiWest - thanks for your efforts so far. However don't confuse RW with Encyclopaedia Dramatica or similar. From my perspective, I campaign against the misuse of dark web terminology and reporting, and TDM is one of the major contributors to this problem. It is not necessary to character assassinate him beyond what affects these areas. Deku-shrub (talk) 19:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to add to Internet kooks[edit]

This article seems to fit in the Internet kooks category--WMS (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to add the category if that's ok--WMS (talk) 15:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Seems fair Deku-shrub (talk) 14:26, 29 May 2016 (UTC)